HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0904 Council Mtg PACKET
, ",);~.,~t;\11 ~'1..::.~i~;~',. r~:x:, :~~Y' .:.2;"_l-.:_~.. J- ".-'t;~~:,f:~'~,
~f2AJ
Important:
Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda,
unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has' been closed. If you wish to
speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your :
name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as
to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some
extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish
to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of August 21, 1990.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Proclamations: Organically Grown in Oregon Week;
Clean Air Week
V. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees.
2. Authorization for Parks & Recreation Commission to
establish a separate sub-account for PERS reporting
purposes.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment o~ Dennis Black as Pro-
Tem Judge. .
4~ Set date for public hearing on Bikeway study for Thursday,
October 11, 1990 at 7:30 P.M.
5. Confirmation of Mayor'S appointment of Council/Park
Commission joint committee to review Open Space funding
options.
6. Request for Attorney General's opinion regarding legality
of legislation pre-empting the ,adoption of Real Property
Transfer taxes.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Must conclude by 9:30 P.M.)
1. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission approving
Planning Action No. 90-057, a 5-lot subdivision outline
plan located on the West side of Granite Street at pioneer
Street. (Gary & Diane Seitz)
2. Proposed formation of a local improvement district for the
installation of sanitary sewers on Peachey Road and
Paradise Lane.
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
)1. Approval of Findings of Facts, Conclusions & Orders
concerning annexation of property on Hwy. 66 at Oak Knoll
Drive (Secure storage).
2. Review of Historic Sign Inventory.
VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Memo from Councilor Williams concerning Council liaison
assignments.
2. Letter from ad hoc Transportation Committee endorsing
proposed application for Regional Strategies funds for
proposed shuttle bus.
3. Traffic Safety recommendations concerning the Downtown
Parking District.
IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the
agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes)
~ 7'C)- t/f
I2v.w '9 () - t.f ~
X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS:
~1. First reading of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code
with respect to unnecessary noise.
2.
Resolution calling a special election for November 6, 1990
concerning the adoption of an air quality opacity standard.
Resolution directing mailing of notices of proposed
assessments on L.I.D. Districts 62 and 63.
3.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
-it
~
~
.!i,r..;',;'., ;
~tT.11'.i..., ". ;...'. . -. ,':,~~' ;;:', .' ,~~:..;..::.; L',~L.~-~:~_ .~~:: . ': ~,.~i~~;"~
..:...:' :. '~~ ~.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 21, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
council Chair Pat Acklin called the meeting to order and led the
Pledge of Allegiance at 7:30 P.M. at the civic Center Council
Chambers. Laws, Reid, Williams, Winthrop, and Arnold were present.
Mayor Golden was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 7, 1990 were approved as
presented.
CONSENT AGENDA
winthrop asked that item #7: Memo from councilor Arnold recommending
dismissal of noise complaint against O.S.F.A. be pulled for
discussion. Arnold moved to approve the remainder of the Consent
Agenda as follows: 1) Minutes of Boards, commissions & Committees:
2) Monthly Departmental Reports: 3) Mayor's appointment of Jerry
sivin to Economic Development Commission and Richard Hansen to
D.P.A.C.: 4) Memo from Dick Wanderscheid regarding Water Conservation
Study: 5) Memo from city Attorney regarding water moratorium time
limits: 6) Financial Report by Director of Finance for year ending
June 30, 1990; 8) Memo from city Attorney concerning abandonment of
easement on property at Helman and N. Main street (Lloyd Haines).
williams seconded and the motion carried on voice vote. Arnold said
the situation with O.S.F.A. is comparable to the recent noise
complaint from neighbors of Parsons pine Products, and if O.S.F.A. is
working on the problem in good faith, the city should work with them.
Arnold said Salter suggested continuing the item for six months, then
dismiss the complaint if the problem is solved. Paul Nicholson,
General Manager, O.S.F.A~, said an acoustical engineer took readings
which showed the decibel level to be within the range allowed in the
noise ordinance. Laws moved to direct the City Attorney to continue
the matter for six months and Reid seconded the motion. Arnold said
it should be understood that as long as good faith efforts continue in
building the pavilion, the city Attorney can use his discretion in
dealing with future complaints. The motion carried on voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Secure storage Annexation - Planning Dir. Fregonese gave the staff
report and said the Planning Commission denied the site review until
issues regarding the wetlands have been addressed by the Div. of state
Lands. He said the Council charge is to make a decision on the
annexation and the conditional use. Staff recommends a contract
Regular Meeting - Ashland city council - August 21, 1990 - P. 1
. ,'... -~,-.
!..i~;4:,..
,};...;~~. ~
Secure Storage Annexation (Continued)
annexation for this use only. Williams said the" Airport Commission
voted to approve the planning action and feels it is the best use of
the property. Marcus Walker, MDK Investments, Bend, said the wetlands
are in the center of the project and if the annexation is approved, an
engineer will be hired to research alternatives. Selene Raffel, 2920
Wedgewood Lane, is concerned with the dangerous intersection at
Highway 66 and E. Main st. Charles Ranger, 630 Spring Creek Dr., is
concerned with robberies at the proposed mini-storage facility.
Laurie Bixby, 571 Oak Hill, is opposed to the project and urged
contract annexation if approved. Charles Meek, 566 Oak Hill, asked
that his letter to Council in opposition"be entered into the record,
and expressed concern with traffic problems, mitigation of wetlands,
and design of the structure. Russ Nahirny, 2880 Wedgewood Lane, is
concerned with congestion on Highway 66 and his view. Michael
Sanford, 2785 E. Main, said the area is residential. Richard Ernst,
975 Walker, is opposed. Jim Miller, owner of the property, said the
land can't be farmed and wants to sell it. Bob Sullivan, 525
Sheridan, said adjacent property owners should have checked the zoning
for future possible uses prior to buying their property. There being
no further comment from the audience, the public hearing was closed.
Winthrop asked about uses in the Airport Overlay Zone and Public Works
Dir. Hall said the property is in the primary safety zone and there is
a residence in the secondary zone. Williams said a primary concern of
his and the Airport Commission's is ingress and egress. Fregonese
said the impact on traffic would be lower than general E-1 uses. Reid
feels the burden of proof has not been met by the applicant, traffic
is a problem, and the wetland issues need to be addressed. Arnold
said this E-1 property will be difficult to develop and this project
is not compatible with the neighborhood. Winthrop said the burden of
proof has not been met for the conditional use permit and other E-1
uses generating more jobs would be more compatible. Williams said the
airport area needs to be protected, this is the best use of the land,
and liability is a concern. Winthrop moved to deny Planning Action
90-120, Arnold seconded and it was a tie roll call vote as follows:
Laws, Williams, and Acklin, NO; Reid, Winthrop and Arnold; YES. Laws
moved to table the issue, Arnold seconded and the motion passed as
follows on roll call vote: Reid, NO; Williams, Acklin, Winthrop,
Arnold, and Laws, YES.
S.O.S.C. 2000 Master Plan - Planning Dir. Fregonese said the plan has
been approved by C.P.A.C. and the Planning Commission, and that it has
been a pleasure working with the faculty of S.O.S.C. Ron Bolstad,
Dean of Administration, gave the background of the plan and said
feedback from the various groups and commissions.has been very
valuable. The plan will be presented to the State Board of Higher
Education for approval and will then become a part of the city's
comprehensive Plan. On questions from Reid, Bolstad said the plan
addresses historic preservation and the college will apply to have
Churchill Hall placed on the National Register; and they are in the
Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - August 21, 1990 -" P. 2
-----.- -,~ ,~
i, .
S.O.S.C. 2000 Master Plan (Continued)
process of looking at alternatives for the Indiana st., Siskiyou
Blvd., Highway 66 intersection. The public hearing was opened and
there was no comment from the audience. Winthrop expressed
appreciation for the working relationship between the College and
City. Laws hopes alternatives for the proposed 25 addition parking
spaces can be found. Laws, Winthrop and Acklin said they are
employees of the College. The resolution was read adopting the SOSC
2000 Master Plan and Williams moved to adopt same. Arnold seconded
the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. (Reso. 90-40)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Garfield/E. Main Housing Project - City Admin. Almquist reviewed his
memo requesting five additional provisions be included in the
Council's endorsement of the proposed affordable housing project.
Winthrop moved to approve the request, Williams seconded and the
motion carried on voice vote. On a question from Laws, Almquist said
an ordinance change is probably not necessary in order to defer
utility hookup fees and systems development charges as noted in
provision #5. Salter will review and bring back a recommendation.
NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
open Space Funding - Julie Reynolds, Park Commissioner, asked that
Council consider placing a funding measure on the November ballot; and
take off the table for discussion purposes their July recommendation
for a 2% prepared food & beverage and 2% entertainment tax for tickets
over $10.00. Reid so moved, Winthrop seconded and the motion carried
on voice vote with Williams dissenting. Laws said the Council is
committed to the open space program but many citizens also in support
are involved in campaigns for the November election. Winthrop said a
subcommittee of Council, Parks commissioners and others should be
formed to work on a new proposal and to build consensus. Arnold is
not willing to support an entertainment tax. Acklin agreed. Jean
Crawford, Park Commissioner, asked for a commitment from Council, and
said the Commission is considering an initiative petition. Acklin
thinks it is the Mayor's place to appoint a committee, and any
citizens wishing to volunteer should contact Mayqr Golden.
siskiyou Blvd. Bikeway Study - Robert H. Foster, Consultant, reviewed
proposals for the E. Main/Lithia/N. Main loop, Siskiyou Boulevard, and
N. Main Street. Public Wks. Dir. Hall said differences of opinion
between Foster and the Bicycle Commission are noted in the resolution
included in the agenda packet. Williams noted that item 4 in same
should reflect that existing signs relatinq to bikes on the sidewalks
on Siskiyou should be removed, and he feels striping is not a big
issue. Reid thinks the stripes are safer, and would like to move
ahead with taking care of the hazards, i.e. storm drains. Hall sent a
letter to the State Highway Dept. requesting that they raise the storm
drain grates. Reid thinks a public hearing should be held before
Regular Meeting - Ashland city Council - August 21, 1990 - P. 3
.---
.. ~..;:".. ..~.,'"
,~~;,":;'
.- '...-..:...; . ..,'-..;
" ~il ;~,.:.
. . .{i::;'~~
Bikeway study (Continued)'
making radical changes to the Boulevard, and Laws suggested an
adjourned meeting. Grant Applioation - siskiyou Blvd. Engineering
Plans - The discussion turned to the next item from the Bikeway ,
Commission recommending submission of a grant application for
engineering plans for the Boulevard Bikeway Project. Acklin said the
study is an excellent document but until it is adopted we should not
apply for the grant. Hall said the application needs to be in by
September 1st. Laws moved to table the grant application, winthrop
seconded, all AYES on voice vote.
Schrodt Designs, Inc. - State Lottery Funds - A letter was received
from Schrodt Designs requesting Council endorsement of their
application for State Lottery Funds for business expansion.
Admin. Almquist noted that they are outside of the city, but
could write a letter of support. Acklin said development of
wood products is a goal of the State. Laws moved to write a
support, winthrop seconded, all AYES on voice vote.
city
council
secondary
letter of
Memo re: 1990-91 Counoil Goals - city Admin. Almquist prepared a
memorandum concerning progress on the goals adopted by the Council.
For information only, no action taken.
opaoity Standards for Woodstove Use - Dick Wanderscheid, Energy
Conservation Coord., said the Air Quality Committee and Staff both
feel the standards will be easier to enforce if they are mandated by
the voters. Mr. Farrar, 987 Walker, feels Ashland does not have an
air quality problem and this action is not necessary. Williams moved
to extend the meeting for 1/2 hour, winthrop seconded, all AYES on
voice vote. williams moved to approve the request, winthrop seconded
and the motion carried on voice vote.
Sewer Connect Request - 1760/1780 E. Main - A request was received
from the Church of the Nazarene for a sewer connect outside of the
City limits. Almquist said there is a wetland issue on the property
to be resolved, and a sewer easement on the other side of E. Main
should be exclusive to the Church. John Seaders, Engineer, said an
engineering study on the wetland area was sent to the State and they
have accepted it, but he did not have that letter in hand. Acklin
said she visited the site as a sanitarian for Jackson County. Laws
moved to grant the request subject to confirmation that the sewer
easement will be exclusive and Williams seconded. winthrop suggested
adding the condition that the building plans be approved by the Div.
of State Lands and the motion and second were amended. All YES on
roll call vote.
PUBLIC FORUM
Bob Fredinburg, 2275 siskiyou Blvd., is upset that his letter to the
Council offering property for sale for open space purposes, was
responded to by the city Administrator.
Regular Meeting - Ashland city Council - August 21, 1990 - P. 4
..:13':..
" '').''
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS
L.I.D. No. 63 - Second reading by title only of an ordinance levying
special benefit pre-assessments for curbs, gutters and paving in
L.I.D. No. 63 and declaring an emergency. Arnold moved to adopt same,
Winthrop seconded and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.
(Ord. 2594)
L.I.D. No. 62 - Second reading by title only of an ordinance levying
special benefit assessments for curbs, gutters and paving for L.I.D.
No. 62. Williams moved to adopt same, Winthrop seconded and the
motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. (Ord. 2593)
Clay Street Park - parking - Second reading by title only of an
ordinance setting limitations on parking at the Clay Street park
parking lot. Williams moved to adopt same, Winthrop seconded, all YES
on roll call vote. (Ord. 2595)
Canvass of Vote - A resolution was read canvassing the vote of the
special election held on August 14, 1990 regarding open space charter
amendment and funding. Winthrop moved to adopt the resolution and
Mayor's proclamation, Laws seconded, all YES on roll call vote.
(Reso. 90-41)
"Pear Capital" - A resolution was read declaring the Rogue Valley as
the "Pear Capital of the World". Winthrop moved to adopt same,
Williams seconded and the motion passed on roll call vote with Arnold
dissenting. (Reso. 90-42)
Peachey Rd./Paradise Lane Sewer District - A resolution was read
setting a public hearing for September 4, 1990 on the formation of a
proposed local improvement district for the installation of sanitary
sewers in the Peachey Rd./Paradise Lane area. Williams moved to adopt
same, winthrop seconded and the motion passed unanimously on roll call
vote. (Reso. 90-43)
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Patricia J. Acklin
Acting Mayor
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
Regular Meeting - Ashland city Council - August 21, 1990 - P. 5
~~,.~. . .
~;'.~I;Jt1{
."..,:,,',,:"'::1.<; ~" ',':1i;:'i'~.1 .
. ',. '.:"::~Di:~. :: .'
CITY OF ASHLAND
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 24, 1990
Chair Pyle called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. at 340 S. Pioneer Street.
ATl'ENDANCE:
Present:
Absent:
Reynolds, Adams, Pyle, Mickelsen, Councillor
Williams. Commissioner Howard arrived late.
Crawford
I. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
A traffic flow projection and a memorandum
conce~ning Lithia water 'were placed under
New Business. Comments from Munchies
concerning table rental space was placed
under Old Business.
II . APPROVAL OP MINUTES
A. ReRUlar MeetinR - June 12. 1990
Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular
Meeting of June 12, 1990 as written. Commissioner Reynolds seconded.
The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no
B. Special Meetin~ - July 2. 1990
Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the minutes of the
Special Meeting of July 2, 1990 as written. Commissioner Adams seconded.
The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no
III. BILLS AND PINANCES
Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the previous mOnth's
disbursements as indicated by Payables checks ~3972 through ~4144 in the
amount of $53,571.22 and Payroll checks #3736 through 3838 in the amount of
$28,842.23. Commissioner Adams seconded.
The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no
IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA
None
V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
Re~ular MeetinR - Julv 24. 1990
Page 2
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Staff presentation on firemanaRement - Lithia park hillsides
Jeff McParland, staff forester, gave a slide presentation to the
Commission and discussed the progress which has been made. this spring in
fire management efforts on the hillsides in Lithia Park. He said that they
had successfully widened the firebreak along Glenview Drive, had cleared
around many of the healthy pines which will increase their survival rate,
and had set up permits for burning after the rains have begun.
B. Rental fee for use of Calle Guanaiuato
Director Mickelsen reported that Arlene Bucich of Munchies had spoken
to him regarding the fee which the Commission has set for use of space on
Calle Guanajuato for outdoor tables. Ms. Bucich indicated that since she
has to pay a fee to the Marketplace for use of the area on the weekends
that she thought that it was double charging for the Parks to also require
a fee to be paid. Director Mickelsen indicated to her that because the
area was public property the Commission felt that it was appropriate to
charge a minimal fee if private businesses were to use the area. In
discussion, the Commission indicated that it would consider excluding the
areas behind Munchies and Greenleaf from the Marketplace agreement but that
for this year it would be the restaurants' choice whether or not to rent
~pace from the Marketplace on weekends.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Traffic proiections for Granite Street
Director Mickelsen presented's report to the Commission on Traffic
Projections for Granite Street which had been written by Mr. Carl Oates and
Mr. John Scally. The report inclu<<ed their estimates of possible traffic
projections if potential development sites above Granite Street were '
actually developed. The report indicated that such an increase in traffic
would not only have an adverse affect on Granite Street but on the "peace
and tranquility" of Lithia Park.
The Commission indicated that if the traffic projections were accurate
that it could conceivably have an adverse impact on the enjoyable use of
Lithia Park. The Commission felt it needed some time to consider the
report before discussing it. Councillor Williams made the suggestion that
the Commission contact John Fegonese to see if the Planning Department's
figures were similar to the ones in this one. The Commission requested
that Director Mickelsen contact the Planning Department to obtain their
traffic projections and decided to place the topic on next month's agenda.
B. Possible leak to Lithia water lines ib Lithia Park
Director Mickelsen presented a memorandum to the Commission which Donn
Todt, Park Horticulturist, had written to him about his concern for the
health of some of the very large and significant trees in lower Lithia
Park. Donn indicated in the memorandum that he was suspicious that a leak
in the Lithia water lines in the park could be causing abnormally high
levels of boron and soluble salts in the soil. Donn indicated that soil
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
Re~ular Meetin~ - July 24. 1990
Page 3
Lithia water - continued
samples taken over a period of time show increasing amounts of boron and
soluble salts in the soil and that some of the trees in the area show signs
of toxic substances within their root zones.
In discussion, Commissioner Howard recommended that the Lithia water be
shut off to the park on a temporary basis as a means of determining whether
or not the toxic elements in the soil decrease and thereby determine
whether or not there is a leak in the line. Commissioner Pyle concurred
also indicating that, if the line could be shut down on a temporary basis,
the public's reaction to not having the water available in the park could
be judged. By consensus, the Commiss~on agreed to have Director Mickelsen
contact Public Works to determine the feasibility and manner in which
Lithia water could be temporarily shut off in the park.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None
IX. ITEMS PROM COMMISSIONERS
.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about contact with Lininger Tru-Mix
about rolling the tennis courts now that the weather was sufficiently hot.
Director Mickelsen said that since the "bubbles" were not occurring this
summer, he did not know that it would be necessary. The Commissioners
asked Director Mickelsen to contact LTM, inquire about rolling the of the
courts even if the bubbles have not re-appeared, and request that they do
so if it could possibly help in the long run keep the bubbles from re-
appearing.
Other items which the Commissioners asked Director Mickelsen to check
into were: people tunneling under the erosion control fence along So. '
Pioneer Street, standing water behi.nd the concession stand at the YMCA City
Park, and the request that the Commission had made of the Council for an
ordinance prohibiting overnight parking in all city park parking lots.
X. NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA
The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for
Wednesday, August 22, 1990 at 7:00 p.m.
The traffic projection study by Carl Oates
and John Scally would be discussed.
XI. ADJOURNMBNT
With no further business, Chair Pyle
adjourned the meeting.
Re/:Jfrrted.
Ann Benedict
Management Assistant
~emnrctudum
August 28, 1990
ijI 0:
Mayor and City Council
JJf rom:
Jill Turner, Director of Finance ~ _
~uhjed;
Separate PERS bookkeeping Parks & Rec
Recommendation: Staff recommends that you pass a motion
allowing the Parks and Recreation Department set up a separate
sub-account for PERS reporting purposes.
Discussion: In the past the City accounted for all of the
Parks and Recreation department accounting. Early in the 80's
Parks began processing their own payables and keeping track of
their own budget and general ledger. During the late 80's,
the payroll functions were transferred to the Parks
Department, although we continued to include the Parks
Department on the annual PERS report. Including Parks is a
time-consuming project which requires our computer generated
PERS list to be re-typed by hand. This will not effect the
actuarial valuation in which we are combined as one employer.
Ann Benedict's letter is attached for your information.
';":~ 'I~<~'j' ~
" ~;.,-..,.r..-.
\ .' ~ .~;
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
CITY HALL · ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 . 488-5340
PATRICIA ADAMS
JEAN M. CRAWFORD.
LEE HOWARD
TOM PYLE
JULIE REYNOLDS
KENNETH J. MICKELSEN
Director
PARK COMMISSIONERS:
Jill: Conrnission approved at
7- 21-90 Fegular ~eting. KM
MEI'1ORANDUM
FRa1
Kenneth J. Mickelsen, Director hl,
Ann Benedict, Management Assistant ~
TO
DATE
August 20, 1990
SUBJECT:
Applying for PERS sub-account number for department
I was contacted by Jill Turner, City Finance Director, requesting that
the department apply for a sub-account number with the Public Bmp10~nt
Retirement System for bookkeeping purposes only. To date the department has
been^inc1uded in the City's PERS number and all of the department's record
keeping has had to be merged with the City's before reports can be made to
PERS. For the 1990 reporting year, PERS has changed its reporting system
which will make merging the department's information with the City's more
cOllJ 1 i cated .
I contacted Susan Higginbotham at PERS who indicates that since th~
department's bookkeeping system is separate fram the City's that it would be
appropriate for the department to have a separate account number for
bookkeeping purposes. A sub-account number is the most appropriate because it
would separate the department fram the City for bookkeeping purposes only. If
the department does obtain its own number the department will be responsible
for filing its own quarterly and annual reports. This will create a small
amount of additional work, however, the department now has to supply the City
with all the information which is included in the reports so the additional
work would be minlmal. A definite advantage for the department is that with a
sub-account number the department will receive direct communications fram PERS
rather than have to be dependant upon the City to provide information
regarding rate changes or other administrative rulings which affect the
retirement program.
I recommend that the department apply fQr a PERS sub-account number.
Ms. Higginbotham recommended that prior to applying for a sub-account number
that both governing bodies, .the Commission and the City Council pass moti~ns
requesting the same. Jill Turner will be writing the Council to request that
they pass such a motion.
Excellent idea. I will recomrnn1 ~:A
to the Comisssion. Ken ~ {(VI
'" .;,..!~:""~~"
Jlemnrnndum
August 30, 1990
ijI 0:
Mayor Catherine Golden
Jtf.rom:
~ubjtd:
Allen G. Drescher, Municipal Judge
Appointment of Pro-Tem Judge
I hereby request that you appoint Dennis Black as a pro-tem judge
of the Municipal Court. It is necessary due to the fact that the
other two pro tems sometimes are unavailable to serve, and this
will provide the court with a third qualified person.
Thank you for your consideration.
JIIemorandum
August 23, 1990
<(fi 0:
Brian Almquist, City Administrator t
7Ir II \\ \::\.
2'1 rom: Steven Hall, Public Works Director).1'
~ubjed;
Foster Bike Study -- Public Hearing
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council set either Thursday, October 4th or 11th, 1990 at
7:30 p.m. for a public hearing on the Foster Bikeway Study.
BACKGROUND
The City Council received the report from Robert Foster at the
August 21, 1990 meeting.
City Council requested staff to recommend a date for public
hearing on the proposal at that meeting.
I will be out of the state from September 4-20, 1990. In order
to allow for publicity for the hearing, I am requesting the
Council consider October 4th or 11th for the hearing. The
Council Chambers are available for each of the proposed dates.
Staff anticipates a press release summarizing the proposal and a
more detailed handout to be available at City Hall prior to the
hearing date.
cc: Bicycle Commission
Traffic Safety Commission
Pam Barlow" Administrative Assistant
~emnrandum
August 31, 1990
ijI 0:
City Council Members
JJf rom:
Catherine Golden, 'Mayor
~ubjett: Appointment of Open Space Funding Subcommittee
Please approve the appointment of the following individuals to
serve on the Council/Parks Commission subcommittee to review open
space funding options:
Pat Acklin
Pat Adams
Cathy Golden
Tom Pyle
Greg Williams
~"~-'-""'''' ._;._'-~.",'. '-I-....ifiilil..,..j ."~_':.o.:.t''';;,, ,,':.:.i.:4.:.....:...lt...:.~~:...k~..~;~~_ ..-,'~'.~ ,.\}t~!<t'~
.4.:'..:..t. . .:i...._
':-'i~;::1 't; ~~.
~emnrandum
August 31, 1990
<(fin:
Honorable Mayor & City Council
Jtfrnm: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
~ubject Request for Attorney General's Opinion - HB 2338
Several Council members have requested that staff investigate the
possibility of obtaining an Attorney General's opinion on the
constitutionality of the passage of a bill on the last day of the 1989
session, which prohibits cities from enacting local real property
transfer taxes.
The basis of this request are the 1906 "Home Rule" amendments to the
Oregon Constitution which, in Article IV, section 1(5) and Article XI,
section (2), essentially reserve to local voters all of the same
powers as the state Legislature possesses, except where they may
conflict with other constitutional provisions or criminal laws of the
state. The Courts, through recent litigation, have extended these "
limitations to include matters that the Legislative assembly
determines are of overriding statewide concern. To the best of our
knowledge no such declaration was made when HB 2338 was passed in
1989, prohibiting cities for enacting such taxes until January 1, .
1994. .
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council authorize the
Mayor to officially request that Rep. Nancy Peterson seek an opinion
from the Attorney General on the authority of the Legislature to
prohibit a Home Rule city from enacting a local tax.
..'
PLANNING ACTION 90-057
APPEAL OF PLANNNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
August 15, 1990
TO: THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Members of the City Council:
We, the undersigned, appeal the approval of the Outline Plan
submitted by G~ry and Diane Seitz, Planning Action 90-057. The
Planning Commission approval with conditions was granted on July
10, 1990 and confirmed on August 14, 1990.
This appeal is made under section 18.108.120, paragraph 0 of the
Land Use Ordinance of the City of Ashland.
In summary, the reasons for the apppeal are:
1. The Outline Plan violates section 18.88.050, Street Standards,
Paragraph A. Street Types, subparagraph 6. Dead End, of the Land
Use Ordinance: "On 1 y lanes may be dead end roads. No dead en.d
road shall exceed 500 feet in length." The proposed street
exceeds 500 feet in length. No variance was asked for and none
was granted.
2. The Outline Plan violates section 18.88.050, Street Standards,
Paragraph B. Street Grade. subparagraph 1. "Streets shall not
exceed a maximum grade of 151.. 2. Where topography requires a
grade greater than 151., a grade of no greater than 181. may be
permitted for no more than 200 feet." A portion of the street
exceeds a grade of 18/.. No variance was asked for, but the
Commission added condition 13 "that no street slopes exceed more
than 201.", a clear violation of 18.88.050.
3.- The Outline Plan violates section 18.88.090, Performance
Standards Guidelines, Site Selection and Site Analysis, paragraph
2, line 2: "Because of highly erodible soils, units should not be
sited on slopes which are greater than 401. ...". On a number of
the proposed buildirlg envelopes the slope exceeds 40~~. No
variance was asked for and none was granted.
4. The Outline Plan violates section 18.88.090, Performance
Standards Guidelines, Neighborhood Compatibility, and the third
criterion: "that the development design minimizes any adverse
effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the
character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the
development. II The neighborhood, in this case, includes Lithia
Park which was not shown on the plat, not discussed, and not
considered. Yet, it is less than 100 feet from the proposed
subdivision. Moreover, no consideration was given to the
compatibility of a project of this scope on the adjacent
residences.
1\
I
(2 )
5. We have drawn up a specific alternative - three lots - that
offers to the owner of the parcel full use of his property, an'
economic return, will meet all the criteria, and will not violate
any of the objections listed above. A three lot development was
acceptable to the owner under certain conditions. We believe
that this alternative meets those conditions. The alternative
was presented to both the Planning Commission and the Planning
Department. It was not given any consideration, although it
assures the required neighborhood compatibility, unlike the
project approved by the Planning Commission.
--;? '/ -P -E: '/:
,j;)-,{a{!t.i~/ C. L-"- t.; c/t'J;.p
2dL~ (' ((;0><-'
Ccl.~ e (j),;., <t;:;------' 3271 C ~ c.. III f < [r I A s Jd a. " c ('
~~4 )4. ~>'-h.,<L :].55" :t.-.'~ ~ ?,~...L,-~~
i)-Sl..~ I~~f.. .3 ~5 .Yf~~wtL, S::f'. Cl4-~ f)
~~J ;/lcLL-7L-L- :3~?':;- /~-e:"1~~/L<'-'I(}T /~J~,
#/.:: "\' / _ ' . ' I. Y. J /~ /;' /
. La.id jJ. :7~t/~! ."/ ;) ;.;- { .,'xd/2d-/"!..~T~i___k);t. I C/J~L~I,/.:-c.C'
'J . (en r 44- 5 b Cj 6,,~,,;j(' St. ) ~~,b,",,"'A,-,
J ~:: C~ ~,,-L ?, bel &icc;Cc c;,L J fhfl~~-0
rVYJ tJ2~ 3~;s-- qt0-t,~~.~ \ (
/ / (. (1..,/ (I ~CLA- ~
,~ 1(~'~"~' '. 'I' 0 , '-- < Y-'\ f----:" "oS '''-' A" /')
CJ . <L,.)\;~ ~ 3 '~J .^-~-L,.'k..-.:c" ""71 J L~~'<--- (~
. , '" /.
~. 'lId ( [I) " //) c,' ~- ~.ft. di/y'lJQ, ~.~"") ,)., v,k1U>l,
,''::''''cfJ/1.J-- f_/'{ C.JlO-C.2.- :/" ,j ~ ~ - \...- <VVv
1?:?
53;~'1/~' /tJk '2 '-75"Grclo,-r-C Sf, / (U~e~~l,{
'~D\,J Mfrfcddt. ') ('3 &,/1-1"'/,' TL S L
'..-':: \ /.1 f1{}l il'~~' /J/) "0;::; /)1 ~ 1r u?atfl2j>;L
( , :.QACC/ U~ y ~ J~ u<_'1 -' ~, -c - ), /J I ( J
~~t%4~- 2 .f1~ ~4(! S-/:: .~~~t{y.'!t J0 (;t&!!i<<lj~O~ J
~, ~rg;,., ;/ _' /J~_-/J? I.' ..L. /d.x/1~.z,:t:1U.C-:s:r-4?dl.c."c.k-
./ / I I'L t."L/cVL~LeJ / / t~'ltL-/ ~ a' ,~. ~
38i h..'ti..,'-". ~\i
T I......,.,f~- r, _
:5 !i/~'~rl.A-/~ ~
i/.}.j'j:. /
~'v''''''r/,-"f(.~ A"-"
) I
;;J--
,;. ':.
::'~-;. d __'
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM II'
July 10, 1990
PLANNING ACTION: 90-057 -- Addendum II
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz
LOCATION: Granite Street, near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets.
On June 12, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, delayed adoption
of the Findings from the May 8, 1990 meeting to allow them the applicant the
opportunity to present an alternative lot configuration.
Rather than consolidate lots 1 and 2 as outlined in condition # 13, the applicant is
proposing to essentially maintain the configuration of these lots while consolidating lots
5 and 6 into one large triangular shaped parcel. The building envelope for this lot has
been setback 30' from the west property line in order to afford greater privacy to the .
existing residence located at 365 Granite Street.
Three on-street parking spaces have been provided along the bend in the proposed road.
Staff believes there is couple of reasons why this location is preferable than a site
further up the street. First, the proposed location should reduce the degree of cut
required because the layout more closely follows the contours. Second, the positioning of
the spaces in the street bend will allow motorists which are backing out to see traffic
coming both up and down the new street.
Overall Staff is very pleased with the modified site plan as presented. The five lots
proposed meet the base density of the zone and have an average lot size of well in
excess of a half acre (25,051 square feet). Further, the proposed spacing of envelopes
will provide for privacy within the development, while minimizing the impact on adjacent
neighbors by situating only one residence between the new street and existing hOllles.
Staff recommends approval of the project with the following attached conditions:
1) That a 10' wide pedestrian easement be dedicated to the City of Ashland along the
irrigation ditch. Pedestrian easement to be shown on Final Plan and recorded on the
survey plat.
2) That building envelopes be presented on the Final Plan and final survey plat.
PA90-057 -- Addendum II
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
July 10, 1990
Page 1
~
I ~~</>~~:"
n,"
3) That all requirements of the Fire Department concerning hydrant improvements be
met.
4) That a final erosion control plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan, addressing
the interim and permanent measures associated with the development of the new street, .
driveways and home construction. Plan to include the use of terracing and rock walls on
cut slopes and netting and revegetation on the fill slopes, with provisions for irrigation
and maintenance.
5) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan,
addressing the removal of trees during street construction, driveway construction and
home building. All trees outside the street right-of-way and building envelopes shall be
clearly marked on a map and on site for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and
Tree Commission. Consideration shall be given to erosion control and wildfire potential.
6) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and comply with the
wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such. requirements to be included in the
CC&R's.
7) That all requirements of the Electric Department be met, including locating a
transformer, if required.
8) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be provided as required by
the City of Ashland.
9) That a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works
Department, specifically addressing the storm water drainage.
10) That the 13.3 acres above the common open space area be dedicated to the City of
Ashland.
11) That the applicant grant the City an easement to this property for maintenance
purposes only.
PA90-057 -- Addendum II
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
July 10, 1990
Page 2
~_.
,,'2a:'.:Li'.:~. _::,;..L :..:..~...'..:..~;:_ ;.. :.:~,;..} ,
-- .' '~';~~~~:'...~:~~:,. .....:.~.~~~..A..'~~ ~'~~.:.:.~~7J:;- . .~ ~:~..~ l~;t:~:\~.:'
. ,~; :': ~,.':_,t :
. I' ..1....,;.:. ~\...
ASHLAND PLANNING COIVIMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.Ill. by Chairl11an Neil Benson. All Planning
Commission members were present with the exception ()f Morgan, who is excused. Staff
present were Fregonese, McLaughlin, Molnar, and Burnell.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Bernard made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 10, 1990 meeting, I-Iarris
seconded. The motion passed with Carr abstaining and all others voting yes.
In the findings, Bernard pointed out that on Planning Action 90-102, the word "City" is
missing from the final page of the findi ngs for that decision (above "section 3, decision"
the word is TIlissing after "detrilnental effect on the supply of rental units in the") Jarvis
moved to approve the findings as corrected, Powell seconded and the 111otion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Jarvis mentioned that earlier in the day during the lIearings Board, the Il1elllbers had
approved at Conditional Use Permit on Planning Action 90-122. The conditions
significantly changed what the I-listoric Commission had approved. Jarvis reconlmended
that the Commission withdraw that decision. McLaughlin stated that this could be done
by a majority vote. Jarvis nlude the 1110tion to withdraw the decision, Powell seconded.
Thompson voted nay, Jarvis and Powell voted yes, and the n1otion passed.
TYPE II PUnLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 90-020
This application has been withdrawn.
PLANNING ACTION 90-057
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF TI-IE OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A
FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER TilE PERFORlVlANCE STANDAnDS OPTIONS
LOCATED ON GRANITE STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF GRANITE AND
SOUTH PIONEER STREETS.
APPLICANT: GARY AND DIANE SEITZ
Site visits were nlade by all.' Benson announced that since he was not involved in the
original hearing on this action, he will abstain from disciis~.ion and voting, and asked
Thompson to chair this action.
5
I ,
:~~.,.
.;:;t.~~~:~~ __
. :'I~.t:~'~'..,
.~~',~,~,i,;.; \
STAFF REPORT
Molnar stated that this was approved in May, and the adoption of the findings were
postponed to allow the applicant to conle back with a different configuration of the lots.
In the previous conditions, the Comnlissioners requested that lots 1 & 2 be consolidated,
and the alternative site plan now leaves lots 1 & 2 as originally planned, and
consolidates lots 5 & 6 into one large triangular shaped lot. Molnar stated that the
building envelope for that lot has been modified to increase the set back to 30 feet.
Another condition was to relocate the on-street parking up around the bend in the new
street; the new proposal relocates the on-street parking in the bend itself. Staff doesn't
feel that this location is going to be a problem, and that it should follow the contours
more closely, reducing the size of the cut. Also, for the motorists backing out, they will
be able to see both down and up the street. With the lot consolidation, the applicant
will now be providing an extra parking space. Staff recommends approval of this
modification with the eleven attached conditions. Molnar confinned to Thompson that
there is still a pathway between lots 3 and 4.
Thompson announced to all present that the Commission is dealing with the lot
configuration as opposed to approval of the whole project. tIe asked that testimony stay
limited to the lot configuratioJl.
. PUBLIC HEARING
GARY SEITZ, 1136 Ril Circle, stated that he could live with all the conditions outlined
in the last hearing, with the exception of the lot configuration. Combining the two
smaller lots would be preferable to cOlnbining two large lots. Co~bining these two lots
would allow more flexibility for the building envelope. Also, this new configuration
would mean there would be only one new residence abutting the house below, rather
than two. Thonlpson questioned about lot 5 and the idea of devoting SOlne of it to
common, open area.
DALE HOFER, 735.Glenwood Drive, Inentioned that the pathway between lots 3 and 4
could be stated n10re clearly in condition 11. Powell questioned about the building
envelopes, and flofer stated that in reconfiguring lots 1, 2, and 3, they were not moved
up or down. Lot 3, however, was narrowed down to meet the solar requirements. He
stated to Jarvis that the slope on lot 2 is 35%; and lot 1 is 38%. Powell questioned on
the location of the cuI de sac. I-Iofer stated that there are approximately 15-20 trees in
the area of the cuI de sac. fIe spoke of the preservation of existing trees on various
lots.
JOT-IN M. SULLY, 365 Granite Street, spoke strongly on an alternative to the Seitz
proposal that would not have adverse iInpacts. I-Ie read froIn a lengthy letter which has
been made part of this record. lIe then provided copies of the letter to members of
Staff and the Planning COInmission.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
.MINTUES
JULY 10, 1990
2
~
CARL OATES, 351 Granite Street, questioned Thonlpson as to when the other issues
such as Lithia Park, and the traffic survey that was done would be addressed.
Thompson replied that the Planning Commission had approved 5 lots, and this hearing
was reopened to deal with the five lot configuration. Oates reiterated his question and
Thompson replied that these issues were dealt with in the May meeting, and that if an
appeal was to be made, that it would need to go to the City Council. Oates strongly
expressed his dissatisfaction as being an "unfairness..,to this body, the City Council, and
to the interested citizens."
Jarvis inserted her confusion as to where they stand on the adoption of the findings.
Fregonese explained that the public hearing had been closed, and that at that time the
Commission felt that they had enough evidence to make a decision. The public hearing
has now been reopened on a limited basis; and the Commission could reopen the public
hearing to once again consider the full matter, however everyone did have a chance to
be heard at the previous meeting, the Commission does now have the authority to open
a public hearing to only address some limited items. After this public hearing is closed,
findings would be written based on the entire record including both sessions. Thompson
stated that he felt that he did not want the Commission to rehear things that have
already been said, which was the intent of restricting this public hearing to the lot
configuration only. Oates then inserted his question once again as to when "we will
'address the historic position of Lithia Park." Fregonese responded to Oates by stating
that the issue he mentioned is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning issue, not an issue to
be taken up on a specific developlTIent.
Oates then read frOlTI the April lath Staff Report, Paragraph 4 (conclusions and
recommendations) lithe ConlIllission must determine if the submitted information
provides an adequate basis for approval of the initial street design as stated earlier,
however significant portions of the building envelopes of Lot 1 and 2 appear to exceed
40% slope. Also insufficient information has been subn1itted addressing driveway access
to these lots and the extent of cutting and filling which has been required. Compared to
the level of detail required of the Ivy Lane and Roca Street development, both of which
are substantial less grade, this application leaves many questions unanswered. Staff
cannot recommend approval on the outline plan for six lots prior to.." the conditions.
Oates questioned what has been changed since that Staff Report. Thompson stated that
he felt it was the determination that there was slopes of less than 40% to build on.
Oates then said that the street is 560 feet long and said that the ordinance stated it
could only be 500.
HOFER restated that he felt that they had nlet the requirelnents of the planning
ordinance to the best of their ability. lIe clarified that the nlap is now the 3rd
generation, and that the slopes on the driveways are now less than 200/0. Concerning the
length of the cuI de sac, it is within the guidelines.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
,MINTUES
JULY 10, 1990
3
1
)
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Thompson stated that he felt that the lot configuration, as redrawn, lessens the impact
on the neighborhood. I-Iarris questioned initial concern and it was stated that the
density needed to be lowered. Jarvis wondered if Staff had reviewed the traffic numbers
in the traffic survey. Fregonese did not feel that the traffic study related directly to this
development.
Carr expressed her concern of drainage and erosion in this area, especially the impact
on the lower houses on Granite Street.
Jarvis moved that Planning Action 90-057 be approved with the attached 11 conditions,
with an addition to the previously stated Condition #11 to say that the applicant grant
the City an easement to this property for maintenance purposes only in the vicinity of
the boundary of Lots 3 and 4; and a new condition #12 that a street plug on the North
side where it abuts private property be maintained, and new condition #13 that no
street slopes exceed more than 20%. The motion was seconded by Powell. .In a roll call
vote, the Planning Action was approved with all Commissioners voting yes, except for
Benson, who abstained.
PLANNING ACTION 90-111
REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS
LOCATED AT EAST l\1AIN STREET AND NORTH WIGHTl\1AN. THE SIX-LOTS
WOULD BE PIIASE VI OF THE EXISTING l\1ILL POND SUBDIVISION.
APPLICANT: LARRY AND DONNEA MEDINGER
Site visits were lnade by all.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin explained that this is the last phase of Millpond. I-Ie said that due to a new
agreen1ent between the Cuttings and the developer, the I1tllnber of lots is reduced. Staff
feels it is in conformance, and has even a lesser impact than the outlined plan.
Thompson questioned whether or not there was to be sidewalks on both sides of East
Main. McLaughlin said that the applicant is required to sign in favor. The other side of
the street is part of the Arnlory and Forensics Lab projects.
PUBLIC HEARING
JAMES AND MYRNA OCI-IS, 1497 East Main Street, stated that their property is
adjacent to the Millpond Subdivision, and they voiced their objections concerning the
agreement about the solid board fence between Millpond and their property. They also
stated that the drainage fron1 the streets and the subdivision dumps into the corner of
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JULY 10, 1990
4
~
t1
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1990
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-,057, REQUEST FOR )
OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER )
THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED ON GRANITE ST.,)
NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF GRANITE AND SOUTH PIONEER" )
STREETS. )
APPLICANT: GARY AND DIANE SEITZ )
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
--------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 900 of 391E 8DD is located on Granite Street, near the
intersection of Granite and South pioneer Streets and is zoned R-l-10
(Single Family Residential), RR-.5 (Rural Residential), and WR (Woodland
Residential).
2) The,applicant is requesting Outline Plan approval for a five-lot
subdivision. site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at
the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are found in Chapter 18.88
and are as follows:
a) That the development is consistent with city plans and with the
stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance.
b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been
considered in the plan of the development and important features
utilized for open, space and common areas.
c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on ithe
areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood
be considered in the design of the development.
d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not
limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, and urban storm drainage.
e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not
cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area,
nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded.
f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open
space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the
early phases have the same or higher ratio of .amenities as proposed in
the entire.
g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered
and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use
is made .of renewable energy sources, including solar, where prac~ical.
q
,:'.~: :"1-t~f"
h) That all other applicable city Ordinances will be met by the
proposal.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on May 8, 1990, at which time testimony was received and
exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, The Planning commission of the city of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index
of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "a..
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an
"M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning commission finds that it has received all
information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff
Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning commission finds that the proposal for a five-
lot subdivision meets all criteria found in the Performance
Standards Chapter 18.88. Therefore; the Planning Commission makes
the following findings:
a) That the development is consistent with city plans and with
the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance.
The five-lot configuration approved by the Commission is consistent
with the stated purpose of the RR-.5 zone and Performance Standards
options Chapter which states: The purpose of the RR district is to
stabilize and protect the rural residential characteristics of the
areas which, because of topography, level of services, or other
natural or development factors are best served by a large lot
configuration. The five-lot configuration on approximately 3.54
acres will result in large lots (average lot size = 25,051 sq.
ft.), compatible with existing topographical constraints and
consistent with RR-. 5 zone. Further, the approved layout has
utilized the flexibility inherent in the Performance Standards
(0
Chapter through the placement of buildings and the installation of
public improvements (i.e, street~) on the least sensitive areas of
the parcel. Building envelopes have been placed on areas with less
than a 40 percent slope and which require removal of a minimum
amount of mature trees, while still ensuring the applicant. s
development rights under the existing zoning.
b) That the existing and natural features of the land have .been
considered in the plan of the development and important features
utilized for open space and common areas.
The subdivision has carefully considered the existing natural
features of the property. The proposed street will follow existing
topography in order to minimize cuts and fills on the natural slope
of the land. Lots have been oriented so as to build on areas of
least slope and to leave the steeper slopes and drainage ways in
a natural state. Building envelopes have been located so as to
minimize the removal of trees greater than 6" in diameter at breast
height, while still permitting the applicant to develop at the base
density of the zone. Further, a detailed Tree Management Plan
indicating trees to be removed will be submitted at the time of
Final Plan approval to be reviewed and approved by the Staff
Advisor and Tree Commission.
c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on
the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the
neighborhood be considered in the design of the development.
Lots have been oriented so as to min~mize the impacts on
surrounding properties and insure adequate privacy. Erosion Control
Plans will be submitted at the time of Final Plan. The Outline Plan
(Exhibit P-3) subm~tted by the applicant indicates that cut slopes
will be retained with a stone embankment, while fill slopes will
be secured with a seed and netting and have a permanent source of
irrigation. Roof drainage will be collected on each site and
~irected to city storm drains or existing drainage easements. Also,
the reduction in the total number of lots from 6 to 5 reduces the
amount of impervious surfaces, and will help to minimize any
adverse impacts of this developm~nt on areas beyond the project
site.
d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but
not I imi ted to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, and urban storm drainage.
No factual evidence has been provided as part of the record which
would indicate that adequate public facilities can not be provided
to the site. Exhibit P-3 shows the proposed placement of sewer and
water lines, ~s welt as new fire hydrant requirements. Letters from
the city's Public Works Director (Exhibit S-4) and Electric
utilities Director (Exhibit S-3) verify that there exists ample
capacity among city services needed to serve the development.
II
-".. ;:'Lo:.',
,; ., ~~:.; ~ ,,::. .
e) That the development of the land and provision of services
will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility iri the
surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent
lands be impeded.
As stated above, letters submitted by the Director of Public Works
and Electric utilities (Exhibits S-3 and S-4) indicate that the
provision of services to this development will not cause shortages
of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area and that
ample capacity currently exists so as not to impede the development
of adjacent lands.
f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open
space and common areas, that if developments' are done in phases
that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities
as proposed in the entire. '
Common open space has been provided as part of the proposal to be
maintained in common ownership by those in the development.' The
applicant's findings indicate this area will be left essentially
in a natural state and will not require a great deal of
maintenance. A Homeowners' Association will be formed, describing
the responsibilities of each owner and will be reviewed by the city
Attorney at the time of Final Plan. The applicant has further
agreed to dedicate approximately 13.30 acres of additional land to
the city for, open space purposes.
g) That the total energy needs of the development have been
considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and
the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including
solar, where practical.
Although the steep forested lots could make it difficult
incorporate solar energy system in house design, the applicant has
agreed to construct all homes in such a manner as to meet' the
city's Energy Efficient Standards.
h) That all other applicable city Ordinances will be met by the
proposal~
The Commission finds no evidence contained within the record which
would suggest that the proposed development is in conflict with
other applicable city Ordinances.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Comm~ssion concludes that the proposal for a five-lot
subdivision is supported by evidence contained in the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being
subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action
(2--
.;
,....
#90-057. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any whatsoever, then Planning Action #90-057 is
denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1) That a 10' wide pedestrian easement be dedicated to the city of
Ashland along the irrigation ditch. Pedestrian easement to be shown on
Final Plan and recorded on the survey plat.
2) That building envelopes be presented on the Final Plan and final
survey plat. .
3) That all requirements of the Fire Department concerning hydrant
improvements be met.
4) That a final' erosion control plan be submitted at the time of Final
Plan, addressing the interim and permanent measures associated with the
development of the new street, driveways and home construction. Pl~n to
include the use of terracing and rock walls on cut slopes and netting
and re-vegetation on the fill slopes, with provisions for irrigation and
maintenance.
5) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of Final
Plan, addressing the removal of trees during street construction,
driveway construction and home building. All trees outside the street
right-of-way and building envelopes shall be clearly marked on a map and
on site for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and Tree
Commission. consideration shall be given to erosion control and wildfire
potential.
6) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and
comply with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such
requirements to be included in the CC&R's.
7) That all requirements of the Electric Department be met, including
locating a transformer, if required.
8) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be
provided as required by the city of Ashland.
9) That a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the
Public Works Department, specif~cally addressing the storm water
drainage.
10) That the 13.3 acres above the common open space area be dedicated
to the city of Ashland.
11) That the applicant grant the city an easement to the 13.3 acres
through the development in the vicinity of the boundary between lots 3
and 4 for maintenance purposes only.
(3
12) That a street plug be maintained along the north side of the new
street where it abuts private property.
13) That no driveway exceed a slope of 20 percent or that stipulated
by the building code, whichever is more restrictive.
~~
Plann1ng CommlSS on Approval
/y~ /7'7'(/
Date
;c{
'.' t -.t ~
. .~I: ....:
'. ) ~,.
Alternative
Since we were asked at the May Planning Commission meeting what
we would accept as an alternative to the Sietz Proposal, here is
an alternative that does not have adverse impacts.
1. Three lots,
subdivided.
1 acre minimum; no lots to be further
Total area in lots and drive - 3.14 acres.
2. Private drive access owned jointly by the three lots; area
in the drive not to be included in the one acre minimum.
3. No tree exceeding 6 inches in circumference at breast
height to be removed within 30 feet of the back line of the
Albert C. Meyer Subdivision.
4. No other trees 6 inches or greater DBH to be removed without
a review by the Parks Commission and the Parks Director;
object to protect the hillside view from Lithia Park.
5. All land not included in the three lots ~nd drive to be
traded to the City of Ashland Open Space Program in exchange
for providing utilities to the three lots and construction of
the private drive. Funds for providing the utilities and
construction of the drive are to come from a force account.
The drive will not have sidewalks, nor will there be any
street lights included in the project.
This alternative is better than the proponent's because it is
consistent with sections 18.16.010; 18.62.050 paragraph c, and
paragraph e; and 18.62.090 of the Land Use Ordinance.
It min.imizes i~pacts on Lithia Park unlike the proponent's plan
of development. See 5/8/90 Staff Report, pg. 2, lines 12~14.
The project would be in full compliance with Chapter 18.88
section 18.88.050, Street Standards. There would be no need for
18% grades and a 560 foot dead end street. See 4/10/90 Staff
Report, pg. 2, Project Impacts - Street Design.
It would be in full compliance with the P Overlay.
There may be some doubts as to whether the proponent's proposai
is a performance standards development. See 4/10/90 Staff Report,
pg. 3, Lot Design, last sentenance, 1st paragraph. There can be
no doubt that this alternative meets all the criteria.
There would be little concern for erosion. Fire danger would be
held to a minimum. There would be one less street for the City
to maintain. Estate size lots would have more value than smaller
lots crammed into a hillside.
In addtion and most important, this alternative fully considers
Lithia Park as a National Register of Historic Places Land Mark.
/6
.i'l
, ":.~)
'J.;,;"'.
. .
TO: ASHLAND PLANNNI,NG COMMISSION
SUBJECT: PLANNNING ACTION 90-057
J UL Y 3, 1990
Attached is a statement of concerns and a request for rejection
of the five lot subdivision of tax lot .900 applied for in
Planning Action 90-057. In support of our request we have also
attached a traffic study covering Granite Street from Strawberry
to Grandview.
Ib
~." ~\; .~~C'
,'~'j ',: ': ;'.;'~.oj.'l
.:.1.;,:';.....\
, -4;
Statement Of Concerns On Planning Action 90-057
1. That the developement is consistent with City Plans and with
the stated pu~pose of this chapter of the Land Use Developement
Ordinance.
The developement is not consistent with Chapter 18.16.01 of the
Land Use Ordinance: liThe purpose of the R.R. is to stabilize and
protect the rural residential characteristics of areas which,
because of toooqraphy. level of services. or other natural or
develooement factors are best served by a larqe lot desiqnation"
(emphasis added). The present land use designation is RR - .5P.
There is no attempt by the developer to maintain or protect the
rural residential characteristics of the area. The proposal
includes an urban residential street with curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, street lights and parking bays as an access to the
developement. There are no such facilities on Granite Street in
this neighborhood. This is inconsistent with the neighborhood
and is not appropriate to the settinq of Lithia Park. a National
Reqister of Historic Places Property.
2. That the existing and natural features of the
considered in the plan of developement.
land have been
If the slope angle, given as per cent of slope, is an existing
and natural feature, then the developer has not considered
existing and natural features in the plan of developement. Most
of the parcel is shown on the maps in the file as a 501. slope.
The exceptions are the building pads. These pads are not now at
the slopes indicated on the map. In his testimony, the engineer
for the developer talked about average slope and flatter are~s
within steeper slopes. This may be so. This is not the wording
in the ordinance and averages begs the question of the intent of
the ordinance, i.e. protection aganist erosion.
Section 18.62.050 of the Land Use Ordinance, Land Use
Classifications states:
paragraph C: Erosive and Slope Failure Lands liThe following
lands are classified as Erosive and Slope
Failure lands:
1-all areas defined as erosive and
slope failure lands on the physical
constraints map and which have a
slope of 401. or greater".
Paragraph E of Section 18.62.050 also applies: "Severe
Constraints Lands Lands with severe developement
characteristics which generally limit normal development. The
following lands are classified as Severe Constraints Lands: 2.
All lands with a slope greater tha 501.. Tax Lot 900 falls under
both classifications.
3. That the developement design minimizes any adverse effect on
the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the
neighborhood be considered in the design of the developement.
/7
:,~
(2 )
Lithia Park is a major feature of the neighborhood. In 1982
Lithia Park was placed on the National Register of. Historic
Places as an outstanding example of distinctive American
landscape architecture. The new street, Diane's Hill, will
certainly detract from the ambiance that exists in the
neighborhood now. A new city street with sidewalks, street
lights, and parking bays where none exists now will significantly
change the setting of upper Lithia Park. Removal of large trees,
large visible cuts of up to 10 feet and houses that will be
visible from the park are not consistent with the historic
setting of Lithia Park, either.
The developement design has not considered adverse effects beyond
the project site in other ways, also. The home immediately to
the south of Diane's Hill is not now a corner lot. A reasonable
assumption was made when the present owners purchased and built
their. home was that the curb cut adjacent to their lot was for a
sinqle family .dwelling, not for a city street and a subdivisipn.
However, if the Planning Commission and City Council approve this
development, the house immediately to the south of Diane's Hill
will be a corner lot. That is not minimizing adverse effects
beyond the site.
The forest behind the existing homes in the neighborhood give one
a feeling of open space, of a rural atmosphere. This was the
setting at the time that Lithia Park was established. Some of
the houses in the neighborhood date back to that time and some
predate the Park. They are part of that setting. The animals
and birds that are resident in the forest are also a part of that
setting. Removal of the forest will eliminate those animals and
birds. Neither the flora nor the fauna can relocate. These are
permanent adverse impacts that have not been considered.
4. That adequate
but not limited
development ...
public facilities can be provided, including
to . . . , . . ., paved access to and throug h the
If the development is to be approved then this criterian should
be observed. A cul-de-sac, is by definition, a dead end street
with a turn around. It is not a through street.
5. That the development of the land
will not cause shortages of necessary
surrounding area...
and provision of services
public facilities in the
The featured story in the Ashland Gazette Volume 1 Issue 8, July
1990, page 8 is titled "Divining The Future of Ashland's Water
Supplyll. The story extensively quotes Steve Hall, Ashland's
Public Works Director, who expresses some concern about the water
supply. The conclusions of the article are (to quote): liThe water
system is pushinq its limit~ and the current five-year drouqht
only makes that seem closer. Somethinq has to chanqe. Soon. II
11
. ~ .
,.'~
( 3)
The article relies heavily on the Beck report. However, the
Montgomery Report adopted by the Ashland City Council in ~978,
comes to the same conclusions and supports the times indicated in
the Beck report. The fact that the Beck Report was not adopted
by the City Council is immaterial.
At what point does the Planning Commission and the City Council
begin to consider water as a limiting factor on growth? Is it at
the point when water supplies have become a crisis issue? When
public faciiities have reached capacity the incremental
cumulative impacts need not be la~ge to over tax those
facilities.
The following comments are directed
18.88.050 Street Standards.
to Chapter 18.88, section
The cul-de-sac is proposed to be 560 feet long. Subparagraph 6,
paragraph A, 18.88.050 Street Types states: "Dead End. Only
lanes may be dead end roads. No dead end road shall exceed 500
feet in lenq th. Dead end roads must termina te in an impr"oved
turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards
quide 1 ines. . . II . Diane's Hi 11 is a dead end road wi th a
turnaround and exceeds the 500 foot lenqth by 12%. Emphasis
added.
In light of the above discussion we, the undersigned, object to
the development as presented because the plan is not consistent
with the City Plans; does not correctly represent the existing
and natural features and has not considered them; that the
development design does not minimize adverse effects beyond the
project site and that the character of the neighborhood has not
been considered; the development will have serious adverse
impacts on Li thia Park, a National Register of Historic Pl)aces
site. The proponent has ignored the criteria which is the basis
for Planning Commission approval. We the undersigned, therefore,
request that the Plannning Commission reject this lication.
John and Jean Sully ~~. ~.
365 Granite Street ~~~ C
Bradley E. and Carol
381 Granite Street
~~~ .{-
~D~
D: LaVine, Jr. J3~eCCJ ,t~ e~wI Jf).~q~)
Friend~~ ~JWA-~~ ~ ~
Daniel C. and Joan Thorndike
369 Granite Street
Dennis and Linda S.
355 Granite Street
Carl C. and Rosalie C. Oates
351 Granite Street
, - I
/!~~il"-' (! :a:!~
"85 f) 0 f(,l ~
e'..-(i vC- C . ~ .~-1
(9
::~ :~ ~ ,t}~'
. ,-~
, (;, '-)i~'1~};~:
~ t
T~affic P~ojections Fo~ G~anite St~eet
As a ~esult of the Seitz p~oposal much conce~n has been exp~e?sed
as to the g~owing t~affic impacts, i.e. noise, congestion, and
ai~ pollution on Lithia Pa~k if the 5 house t~act is app~oved and
the p~oposed st~eet (Diane's Hill) is const~ucted. Diane's Hill
offe~s an oppo~tunity to open the west canyon hillside to fu~the~
developement by a st~eet connection to St~awbe~~y. As will be
shown in this study such a connection would have se~ious
implications fo~ G~anite St~eet and have se~ious adve~se impacts
on Lithia Pa~k. When questioned about this the Di~ecto~ of Pa~ks
and Rec~eation exp~essed his g~eat conce~n that the peace and
tranquility of Lithia Park would be se~iously affected. It is
ou~ belief that the time is now to p~event such impacts. Hence,
this study was conducted to demonst~ate the ~esults of allowing
developement of the hillside in compliance with the existing
zoning and Land Use O~dinance.
This study examines only
new ~esidential units that
G~anite St~eet within an
map of the City of Ashland
the t~affic gene~ated by existing and
could be built on the west side of
a~ea delineated on the official zoning
as R-1-10 and RR-.5-P.
The p~ojections assume no new lots of less than a half ac~e would
be c~eated. Existing legal lots of less than a half ac~e would
be built on. Tax lots that could be subdivided unde~ the
existing zoni~g with a po~tion exceeding an even ac~e we~e
~ounded up o~ down depending on whethe~ they we~e ove~ o~.under. a
half ac~e, e.g~ 1.77 was counted as 2 ac~es and were assigned 4
units; 1.35 ac~es was assigned 2 units. Any lots unde~ an ac~e
we~e assigned only 1 unit even though existing zoning has a
minimum 10,000 squa~e foot lot size.
T~affic p~ojections we~e based on figu~es used by the Association
of State Highway Officials (ASHO), that is 10 t~ips pe~ day) (24
hou~s) pe~ unit o~ Ave~age Daily T~affic (ADT). The figu~e
includes all t~ips by occupants plus any se~vice t~ips, i.e. home
deliveries, etc. A t~ip is a one way t~ip, hence a t~ip to take
a child to school is two t~ips, as is a commute~ t~ip to work.
The p~ojections a~e as follows:
Units (ADT)
new 130 1300
existing 46 460
total 176 1760
These figu~es assume all lots a~e developed to full capacity
unde~ the existing zoning o~ as planned by the develope~ as in
the case of the Seitz Pa~cel. All tax lots capable of
subdivision would be subdivided to thei~ full capacity unde~ the
/)0
(2 )
existing zoninq. No allowance was made for slope, however, it
was assumed the allowance for partial acres compensated for loss
of units as a result of slope adjustments required by the land
use ordinance.
Access is assumed to come either from Diane's Hill (new street in
the proposed Seitz Developement) or a street extended from
Strawberry (Scenic?). Major street access is Granite Street and
all traffic would be funneled to Granite. At present, Strawberry
could not carry the projected traffic, or even half of the
projected traffic and carries only a small portion of the
existing traffic. To accomodate a portion of the projected
traffic Strawberry would have to be improved to the standards of
Nutley, at least.
These .figures do not include traffic generated outside the
Granite Street neighborhood, e.g., summer tourist traffic, nor
City Street Maintenance'truck traffic using the borrow pits in
the canyon or any other existing ADT. These and other sources
could increase the traffic loads on Granite anywhere from 1bl. to
501. o'r more.
The impacts of these increases (even projected over 10 or 15
years) would have major impacts on Lithia Park use. The impacts
include noise, congestion, and air pollution. During events at
the band shell or other locations in the Park use of Granite
Street would be extremely difficult. On-street parking would
have to be prohi bi ted. Access to the upper canyon in cas'e of
fire in summer would be restricted.
Even if the figures are cut in half, traffic loads and impacts
would be increased significantly. The alternative is to restrict
developement in the area through down zoning, strict enforcement
of slope restrictions for building, and possibly a moratori~m on
developement of the entire west slope of the canyon. Including
more of the west side of the canyon in the open space program is
also a possibility.
Reducing the Seitz developement to three lots on a private street
is a good first step in the right direction.
Dated : July 2~ 1990
;21
I --.-----,.-.~-..-
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING
on the following request with respect to the
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held
before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 4TH
DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1990 AT 7:30 P.M. at the
ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right
of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which
ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria arc available for inspection at no cost and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be
available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials arc available at the Ashland
Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Mayorshall allow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the
right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted
to the applicable criteria.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free
to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City I lall, at 488-
5305.
..----
""-'.It",-
~t~
"~ ;~'~~~~,;.I":
"c
\1<:r:""'....r,.,
'r,!""s,
. e~
\....;,)/
~
I
/
"'--,.. /
j'-.'
I
/
j
~.
"-
...--'---,.
.---..
. ,
-"".., .........
. ... "..
..."nT-'--'~~~-=-~.-:"=:=-:_.: ....~~: G~A~I.TE_ ~~~E:T.._ .. ..
PLAN~rNG ACTIC?~ ~O-057 is a request for reconsideration of the Outline Plan approval
of a five-lot subdivIsion under the Performance Standards Option located on Granite
Street, near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 800; Tax
Lot: 900.
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Sietz
;2d-
;~..,..~~.c:" l 1..' ~;...,~.. ..l',~
, ..~~~:,~l~ff.~~~ .' .
~~ ", .....: ':'. .
. I
.' - : ,
, ,'~, >.::l:~,!~~;-:',
.:..; . .I!:-i.\
. .
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE
. "
On .,. ---c..--? LCL 2- () , 19 C; ~ I the attached notice was mailed
by the Ashla.. d Planning Division to the attached mailing list for Planning
Action # ';/[) - D '(7)- 7 .
The total number of notices mailed was /5
~.
.' ~7 ..
BY ~ ~/~, ~-Cc-u ??U~ '
, ,(.
DATE ~'(0'LiZ._ 01&, / '7 ;;-cJ ':>
// .
t/
Notice checl<ed by:
~;!'l 7?2(~/~~/~~~
PI9nner . / .
\
Date: Q~''lLil_.d() / ~7 7~j
// /
1/
';.
Property Owner Notified /'
Applicant Notified /'
P-/;)
. .~.:~~-t .~/~
;~~ 1f~~
C I T Y
ASHLAND
: I
8/16/90
o F
C I T Y
HAL L
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
telephone (Code 503) 482-3211
RE: Planning Action #
90-057
Dear Gary and Di ane Sei tz
At its meeting of Ju 1 y 10 ~ 1990
Comlnission approved your request for Ou t 1 i ne P 1 an Approv a 1
the Ashland Planning
~
for the property located near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets
Assessor's Map # 39 1 E 800 , rrax Lot(s) 900
The Findings of Fact and the Comn1ission's Orders, which were adopted at the"
Augus t 14, 1990 lneeting, are enclosed.
Please note the following circled items:
1.
A final Inap prepared by a registered surveyor Inust be submitted within one year
of the date of prelilninary approval; otherwise, approval hecolnes invalid.
A final plan must be subrnitted within 18 1110nths of the date of preliminary
approval; otherwise, approval beC0l11eS invalid;
3.
There is a 15 day appeal period which nlust elapse before a Building Pernlit lllay be
issued.
4.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning C0111Inission must be fully n1et before
an occupancy permit n1ay be issued.
5.
Planning COffilnission approval is valid for a period of onc year only, aftcr which
time a new application would have to be sublnitted.
Please feel free to call Il1e at 488-5305 if you have any que?tions.
JMcjsa
Enclosure(s)
Jet
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Steven M. Hall, P.E., Director
pc- ~~
s-4-
') 1-
CITY HAll
503-482-3211
Clrttg of As~lan(l
ASHLAND, OREGON
97520
May 11, 1990
Mr. Dale W. Hofer, P.E.
Marquess & Associates, Inc.
P.O. BO;K 490
Medford, Oregon 97501
..
Re: Diane's Hill Subdivision
P.A. 90-057
Dear Mr. Hofer:
This lett~r is in response to a citizen's letter about water 'and
sewer service on Granite Street for the proposed Diane's Hill
Subdivision.
Page 3, paragraph 5), subparagraph 3 notes that "Nothipg has been
done in the twelve years." in relation to water supply. The City
of Ashland has continued to improve our water system and reduce
losses in the system from 651 million gallons in 1970 to 281
million gallons in 1988. This systematic upgrade of our water
system has found a "source" of water equal .to the lowered losses,
or about 370 million gallons per year. The 1989 Beck Water
Supply Report notes that a second source of water should be on
.line by 1996. Later population projections extend t~at time by
another 5 years and water conservation could extend the time even
further. Beck estimates 2 years for a water conservation
program.
Page 4, paragraph 5), subparagraph 4 alludes to lack of water
capacity and reliability in the Granite Str~et Line.. The last
section of old and undersized line from Nutley to North Main was
replaced in 1989. The remainder of the system is a 12" line
which is more than adequate for the entire area and proposed
subdivision. There will be no effect on other users of that
system. I can only assume that the writer of the letter was
referring to the line which serves Strawberry Lane and is over 50
years old. This is a totally separate system which does need
replacing and is a part of the reasori for the NW Area water
moratorium which includes upper Strawberry Lane.
;26
.t} _:~.. .
'" _:,' ~f~-:,H.f' ,<
I .~'; ~ ~. ~ '
::,. ..;.-
..' 1~..~ ~ .\I.~' .:~.
~': t:~+)~;;
....., ...'..'
Diane's. Hill Subdivision
May 11, 1990
Page TwO.
Page 4, paragraph 5), subparagraph 6 is indorrect as the sewage
treatment plant is not near capacity. The spills and capacity
problem relate to a sewage pump station located immediately north
of the treatment plant that pumps sewage from the .Bear Creek
Sewer Interceptor line to the headworks of the sewage treatment
plant. The pump station is at its' capacity and a new p~p will
be installed this year to boost, the capacity. Also, standby
power (a diesel generator) wilL. be installed at the station to
eliminate the problem with power failures.
Page 4, paragraph 5), subparagraph 6 is incorrect as the sewer
lines in Granite Street do not nee~ to be replaced as soon as
possible. The writer may be referring to the sto~ drain system
which did need to be replaced and has been replace in 1989-1990.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at 482-3211.
Sincerely ~ours,-
--11. ~l.~ ~}j \
Steven M. Hall, P.E.
Public Works Director
cc: John Fregonese, Planning Director
Dennis Barnts, Water Superintendent
Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer
;)-10
. .t:?:~. ;.: ~,~ ;, :....
"""~'~~;'t' ,;,{~
." - ;':~~;1k.;.. ' . ~.. .'
.... '. - I' : ~ r .-:
. .... .
/-i1i"~-::::~ .
,. ).:! ~,;..,'.'
i1tj~
v'
.-i
PLANNING ACTION 90-057
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION
UNDER.THE PERFf;>RMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED ON GRANITE
STREET, NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF GRANITE AND SOUTH PIONEER
STREETS. APPLICA.NT: GARY AND DIANE SEITZ
Site visits were made by all.
Bingham met Seitz and discussed where things would be but not the merits of the
application.
STAFF REPORT
This is a large flag lot off Granite Street with slopes ranging from 10 percent to in
excess of 50 percent. The applicant is proposing to create six tax lots with the street
terminating at the cul-de-sac. There will be three parking spaces in the cul-de-sac and
three spaces in a parking bay on the first 200 feet up the street. The applicant has
surveyed the building envelopes and all are under 40 percent. Staff concerns were
with the 18 percent street design, however, the reason for retaining the 18 percent is at
the turn it would require less of a cut to make the grade at 15 percent, thereby
allowing flatter driveway access points into the lots. Cuts and fills on the new plan
indicate the cut slope will be about six feet in height and retained with a stone wall.
The fill slope would be retained with a seed mixture. Around the cul-de-sac, the cut
would reach approximately 10 feet in height. The applicant is proposing the area on
the downhill side of the irrigation ditch to be owned in common and maintained by the
homeowners and the portion uphill from the irrigation ditch (approximately 12 acres)
would be dedicated to the City for open. space proposed. Staff had a concern with the
proximity of lots five and six to the surrounding houses in the area. Homes built on
lots five and six could impact the privacy of 365 Granite Street. Molnar read the criteria
for approval for outline plan and showed slides.
Bernard wondered what the potential for development to the north would be.
McLaughlin said that a new street could potentially open up development on trie upper
portion of the lot.
Examples of 18 percent streets: Mountain Avenue before Prospect, Wimer Street in
the vicinity of Prim and Walnut. Upper Morton Street is 22 percent.
PUBLIC HEARING
GARY SEITZ, requested approval of this action. He wishes to dedicate 13.3 acres to
the City for open space.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 8, 1990
4
)1
--.----- ---
....~;.\\:. .
~ .~.r~\i~~'~ .'.
: ..' · ;~\ t'. " . .
..........
DALE HOFER, Marquess & Associates, 735 Glenwood Drive, mentioned that the
applicant will have a personal interest in the property and has expressed an interest in
retaining much of the natural area. Hofer requested an 18 percent street slope and
mentioned several streets in Ashland that were approximately 18 percent. He pointed
out to the Commission that it is the kind of slope that, when necessary, makes the
road usable. Because a portion of the road becomes transitional, only a small portion
is 18 percent. 'Hofer spoke with Chief King and King said that it is accessible.
Jarvis asked about the slope of each lot. Hofer delineated each lot. Hofer stated that
the building envelope for lot six could be moved back 35 feet from the lower property
line in the Albert Meyer subdivision. It is 47 feet between the building envelopes on
lots five and six. Hofer said there would be 20 percent maximum driveway slopes.
With regard to the open space, Hofer said the applicant would prefer to keep the
access private, rather than public. Even though the canal is presently used for
walking, Bingham ~as concerned that this area would be unusable. Fregonese
explained that this would be part of a large park and a valuable dedication to the City.
This is also part of a trail that will eventually become part of a regional trail.
Hofer said the drainage plan will be done when the street is built.
RON CUE, P. O. Box 1228, was appearing for Jim Terrile of Seattle who owns property
on the right hand side of the road. Terrile's concerns were the 18 degree street grade.
Also, the on-street parking provisions (he assumed that the three parallel parking .
spaces will comply with on-street parking requirements -- that the spaces are within the
required 200 feet of the lots using them). Cue commented that it seems difficLIlt to put
the spaces on the steepest portion of the street. Thirdly, there is a 49 foot right-of-way
to be dedicated by Terrile's house, with only 41 feet required. There is a six foot
setback instead of ten foot. Could the City accommodate saving the tree at the
bottom, adjacent to Terrile's property and give Terrile a normal setback by not
centering the paved portion of the road in the middle of the right -of-way, but placing it
off to the left a few feet?
JOHN SULLY, 365 Granite Street, speaking on behalf of the neighbors, spoke to the
criteria for outline plan approval and said that items two, three, four and five have not
met the burden of proof. Sully's statements of concern dated April 3 and May 1, .1990
and entered into the record, still exist. He requested that the application be rejected
without further consideration.
CARL OATES, 351 Granite Street, spoke to item three of outline plan approval
(minimizing any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project). He referred to the
letter he wrote that has been entered into the record.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 8, 1990
5 .
:;~
. :'l,:'~~'..'
~ .. ~.
. ....--:;,...~ "
, \. ~. 1\.. ,,~::
'i ' : .
l~~L~
HOFER has spoken with water, electric and sewer departments and has been assured
that there is an ample supply of each in that area. With regard to the road slope, if it
were 15 percent, it would add an extra six feet of cut and look unsightly. If the parking
could be moved up somewhat, it would be desirable to get in a better slope position.
It appears that portions of the chestnut tree are dying.
Thompson asked Suny who he felt would be most impacted by this project, that if the
Commission were to approve thi~ application, and what would Suny like to see with
lots five and six. Suny wanted to see them deleted. Suny said that even he though is
impacted, Oates is impacted even more and there is no mitigation; nothing would
offset the impact to Oates. Again, he referred to the reports he received from the City
regarding the acute water shortage.
HOFER felt that everything has been done to keep the privacy of neighbors.
SEITZ had this lot long before the Sullys built and he wondered why they built so close
to property line.
JEAN SULLY is concerned about fire. In the winter, if there is ice, how does a fire
truck get around the cul-de-sac? Fregonese explained that the road and the cul-de-
sac meet fire department standards.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Bernard favored the application and felt the density was appropriate and was pleased
that the applicant was not asking for any variances. He approved of their generous
offer of 13 acres of land to be given to the City for open space besides the common
open area for the homeowners. He also did not feel it should be the applicant's.
responsibility to provide access to the open area. He felt that the proximity of lot six to
the house below is workable and noted that there are many houses in Ashland that are
in close proximity to houses below and that with proper screening, the privacy can be
mitigated. This area is zoned residential and was actually a higher density at one time.
Legally, it would be difficult not to grant approval of this application. .
Carr had several concerns: the lack of hard data in this application and the free hand
sketch of a typical elevation.
Jarvis noted that there are three lots with slopes over 35 percent. She does not
believe the zoning is protecting hillside slopes and the only way to protect them is to
reduce the building envelopes. Jarvis wondered whether there is any problem with
wildlife preservation. Fregonese said the upper nine acres have been identified as the
major wildlife area. She is concerned with the impact of the driveway slopes and cut
and fill.
6
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
. MINUTES
MAV 8, 1990
:J~
,~>;t,., ~
"'~'i;ft1~.,.
;". "rt, .
~,' ... ::4J;;t~
~ ~ '~~~.~...". ~ ,~
; .,..
I ..~.
._:-' )'t:,.
i.~,i{.t~'c..
~:y~~
Powell made some comparisons with the Houghton development on Scenic. She
noted that she was scarcely aware of the homes in the upper portion of Granite Street.
Powell mentioned that she experiences frequent electrical power fluctuations at her
own home in this area. She questioned the water situation. Fregonese explained that
the City has never adopted the Beck report. because Beck never used conservation.
The Beck report said we need a new water supply by 1998. The Council has directed
the City to look at other resources other than building a new dam and how to make
the existing water sources more efficient.
Morgan expressed his concerns with drainage. The flatlands are starting to .
accumulate a great deal of water during rain, while the black belt is increasing on the
hillside. He believes this development is too dense, with too steep a City street next to
Lithia Park. He does not approve of the deep cuts. Also, it is not necessary for the
City to own a "visual" open space. The cwl-de-sac. would have to remove a larger
stand of trees when installed.
Bingham referred to the other development on Granite (near Meyer). If the proposed
application is done properly, the same thing can be achieved as well as being far less
dense than what the Planning Commission could be receiving. With regard to the
road, if decreasing the slope increases the cuts, Bingham did not think 18 percent is
detrimental for 100 feet. He felt this was an appropriate place for a cul-de-sac as it
would tend to limit traffic. He would not object to a redesign of lots five and six.
Harris shared Bingham's views.
Thompson agreed .with Bingham also and thought that the building envelopes could be
adjusted somewhat.
Bingham moved to approve with the attached conditions. Add Condition 10 to require
a 35 foot backyard setback for lots five and six. Harris seconded the motion.
Bingham amended to add Condition 11 that 13.3 acres above the common area to be
dedicated to the City and Condition 12 to allow access for the City for maintenance
purposes only. Bernard seconded the amendments. The motion failed with Bingham,
Harris, Thompson and Bernard voting "yes" and Jarvis, Carr, Powell and Morgan
voting II noli .
After further discussion and combining lots and moving the parking, Bingham then
moved to approve adding the Conditions 11 and 12 above and adding a condition that
lots one, two and three be combined into two lots and the building envelope in lot
three be located down towards the road. Add that the parking bay to be moved above
the curve in the road. Harris seconded the motion and it was carried with Thompson
and Bernard casting dissenting votes.
Harris left the meeting.
7
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 8, 1990
'9D
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM
May 8, 1990
5-1-
PLANNING ACTION: 90-057
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz
LOCATION: Granite Street, near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets
Since last month, the applicant has submitted additional information addressing the
concerns in the previous Staff report. Following are items of concern which were
discussed in last month's Staff report and for which additional information has been
provided:
Street Desi2n
The alternate site plan submitted by the applicant's engineer maintains a portion
of the street grade at 18%. This segment of street will start just after a short
landing of about a 10% and continue up until the bend in the road. The
engineer's reasoning behind leaving the 18% segment is because it closely
matches the existing grade, is a reasonable grade for fire access and will allow the
grade in front of the residences to be at a flatter slope, thereby reducing the
amount of cut needed to provide driveway access.
A typical road cross section has been provided indicating areas of cut and fill,
with the cut bank along the road (excluding the cul-de-sac ) being 6' in height.
The plan specifies the use of stone for protection of the cut slope, while a seed
mixture will be used along the fill bank. Details describing seed mixture and
stone type, as well as the procedure for application will need to be presented at
the time of Final Plan approval.
A profile of the proposed street has also been included showing a finished cul-de-
sac grade of approximately 70/0. The new site plan indicates a 10' cut bank around
the perimeter of the cul-de-sac. No cross section of the cul-de-sac has been
provided.
Lot Desi2D
PA90-057
Gary a~d Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
May 8, 1990
Page 1
.~l
The revised plan shows all building envelopes 'to be located outside areas which
exceed a 40% slope. The applicant's engineer states that he has walked the site
and measured the grade. and believes the slope calculations to be accurate. Slope
calculations using the spot elevations depicted on the plan seem to support this
conclusion. .
Driveway locations have been shown on the new plan. Proposed grades for each
driveway, however, have not been indicated. Staff believes that driveways should
be designed to insure safe access onto the abutting street, at 20% grades or less.
The new site plan has consolidated the approximately 6 acres of open space into
lot 4. This will be owned in its entirety by the owner of parcel 4.
Staff believes the applicant has addressed many of the concerns discussed in the
previous report. We further believe that this is a unique parcel, considering its many
natural attributes and its close proximity to Lithia Park. Therefore it is important that
much attention is spent to ensuring neighborhood compatibility by taking into account
existing development levels of the surrounding neighborhood. When looking at the
surrounding development pattern, there exists a generous amount of spacing between
existing residences. The new plan, however, has two proposed residences located on the
downhill side of the new road, towards Granite Street, overlooking an existing residence
(365 Granite Street). The spacing between these two proposed tax lots and the adjacent
residence (15 and 25 feet respectively) is not as liberal as what is characteristic of the
existing neighborhood. The location of these two homesites will directly impact the rear
yard privacy of the existing tax lot below (365 Granite Street). The Performance
Standards Guidelines state:
The project should strive to ensure that adjacent properties maintain the privacy
of their rear yards. This is especially a problem when second-story windows look
into rear yards or other private areas. The design should minimize this type of
problem.
Staff feels the Commission should- consider consolidating these two lots into one, in
order reduce the impact on the adjacent property owner.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the application, Staff recommends'
the following conditions:
1) That a 10' wide pedestrian easement be dedicated to the City of Ashland
along the irrigation ditch. Pedestrian easement to be shown on Final Plan and
recorded on the survey plat.
PA90-057
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Departme.nt -- Staff Report
May 8, 1990
Page 2
?;/-
2) That building envelopes be presented on the Final Plan and final survey plat.
3) That all requirements of the Fire Department concerning hydrant
improvements be met.
4) That a detailed erosion control plan, including all areas of cut and fill, be
submitted at the time of Final Plan, addressing the interim and permanent
measures associated with the development of the new street, driveways and home
construction. Plan to include the use of terracing and rock walls on cut slopes and
netting and revegetation on the fill slopes, with provisions for irrigation and
maintenance.
5) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan,
addressing the removal of trees during street construction, driveway construction
and home building. All trees outside the street right-of-way and building
envelopes shall be clearly marked on a map and on site for review and approval
by the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission. Consideration shall be given to
erosion control and wildfire potential.
6) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and comply
with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such requirements to be
included in the CC&R's.
7) That all requirements of the Electric Department be met, including locating a
transformer, if required.
8) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be provided as
required by the City of Ashland.
9) That a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Public
Works Department, specifically addressing the storm water drainage.
PA90-057
Gary and Diane S~itz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
May 8, 1990
Page 3
00
. .. ~~i:~
'.~4:~:':
. ~ 1\~4~:~~~ .
~,t1!.~~.~
ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal.
,
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING
on the following request with respect to the
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held
before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
on the 10TH DA V OF JUl V, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. at
the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the iss\le, precludes your right
of appeal ~o the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be
available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland
Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the. Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chairshall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments'be restricted to the
applicable criteria.
Uyou have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free
to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City I la'll, at 488-
5305.
------:... ''''''G ,
....,...~ .. -________ "'r,o
-' . . -----z ~~
"JI/.. I . ,l
",. '..1';.(, .Q,- ________
"7~1.\,./~~:t:v : ~
. r,c. s,,'J,.,.;:,;c:>v .. - _ --~
~ - ?t ~L. r;;,
~..~~.
.,t- ;;;.~~;.:~.;~-.:
'c .
\J~r;~\"'C''''
; rc~ "'So
, ~'I:
,v) 1)/
'PA .10-057
S\A.6di v 1 s " 0 Y"\
100.0'
.'
'L+'~
~ .-
~::-f~I~,.
-. -
tl~--'
o#o'li'''I.
- ---.-----.--...- -~~~~~ ~r.:
...~..- .
~
f'r<OJE:C, srI):
r-- I
( .. I
1r
PLANNING ACTION 90-057 is a request for reconsideration of the Outline Plan approval
of a five-lot subqivision under the Performance Standards Option located on Granite
Street,near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 800; Tax
Lot: 900.
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Sietz
:;DY
."r.~....-.u:~':I~' . . ""~.~.-..::',,t....F 1"..:_>~.'.: ~:.-.:..>...~ ~,,;"~"i~\r~a'J;""';~',.
./.... "...
I...'........
. :'. ~;-.:;'J.;:
369 Granite Street
Ashland, eR 97520
482-4617
Nay 2, 1990
0- I
Ashland Planning Commission
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, on 97520
Dear Members of the Planning Camnission:
Re: PLANNING ACTION SO-057; Applicant: Gary and Diane Seitz
These ccmnents are in addition to those previously suhnitted on our behalf
by Mr. John Sully, our neighl:or at 365 Granite Steet.
The project, as designed, appears to be little more than an econany
"flag lot" version of a sul:division. A single noncontiguous cul-de-sac
road, with one roint of ingress ar..e. ~;resG or..to a single existing street,
is proposed to serve upto 1: full or rart-.tiIne residences (albeit on
6 lots). This design scriocsl:" ir~truc1es uron and conflicts with the
existing neighborhood, am it should be rejected.
Obviously, all of the traffic generated 1:".1 the developnent would have to
travel in and out past the same unfortunate residences adjacent to the
road. Traffic is not vented off by an~ other access.
Moreover, many larger vehicles will undoubtedly have to use the cul-de-sac
turnaround to be able to exit. This guarantees additional noise and
light for the residences downhill fran this design feature. This is in
addition to the impact of the proposed street lights.
Ashland's Land Developnent Ordinance., particularll" its I'er::oIT.1a;CC ::tarrlards
Option, is replEte with requirements for meanin;~ul consiceration of:
canpatibili ty with existing neighborhoods. It is apparent tl:.ese requirements
canmt be met with the existing proposal.
Fran a. more general perspective, too, one must question the planning wisdan
of allowing sucl: "spot" sulrli visions as the means by which Ashland's .
ranaining hillsides are developed. As evidenced. by the AIDO provision
strictly limiting the length of cul-de-sacs, the decision has already
been made not to. For this reason, too, the proposal should be rej ected.
ve~ truly~ yo~rs~
~\C
Daniel C. Thormike am Joan E. Thorrrlike
L
J"""" (' .\\-..of ~~
36
-.' ~~,~. :::., \ .-'';' = ~" , : ",' f.::#ttF,:';'f.:,.;::
'"~ .
0-1-
TO: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMMISSION
SUBJECT: PLANNING ACTION 90-057
MAY 1, 1990
Attached is a Supplementary Statement of Concerns and a request
for a rejection of the six lot subdivision of tax lot 900 applied
for in Planning Action 90-057
. ,\\;.i~::i
3(P
; .
Statement of Concerns On Planning Action 90-057 - Supplement
April 28, 1990 0 - L
Past bad urban design and planning actions (Meyers Subdivision,
1974) do not necessarily justify that the mistakes be
perpetuated. The placement of lot 900 is unfortunate in the sense
that to develop it would require a significant burden on the
neighborhood and is a bad urban design. There are alternatives
other than a 5 or 6 lot developement for Mr. Seitz to provide
himself and his family with a retirement home. Denial of this
application will give him a opportunity to explore those options.
The revised outline plan, dated April 26, prepared by Marquess
and Associates, Inc. (the firm) has not properly addressed the
issues in the Statement of Concerns dated 4/3/90, nor issues
raised in the Ashland Planning Department Staff Report dated
April 10, 1990. The following discussion addresses the
responses made by Marquess & Associates, Inc. in the revised
outline plan on a point by point basis.
1. "Diane's Hill' Street Grade". One reason for the reduction in
grade is to reduce the hazard of icy streets. See response 4.
This issue was raised in the Planning Staff Report and has not
been adequately dealt with by the firm. As an example, the firm
does not show either top of slope or toe of slope (for cuts and
fills) at the CuI-de -sac, nor on any other portions of the
proposed street, not even conceptually. A cross section through
the cul-de-sac would have been appropriate.
2. "Clearance between the two existing houses adjacent to Diane's
Hill near Granite Street". The statement does not address the
issue at all. The fact that the two houses are 69 feet apart in
no way negates nor mitigates the loss of the position of interior
lots that the two parcels now enjoy. Lot 900 now has only
residential driveway access as is evidenced by the curb cut. To
assert that putting in a city street will have no effect because
the setbacks will exceed the required setbacks by .4 feet is
ignoring the issue. The design of the residence at 351 Granite
and its placement was based on being an interior lot not a corner
lot. It is certain that the other house was not built with the
proposed subdivision in mind, either. Corner lot position will
have a strong adverse impact that cannot be mitigated.
3. "Availability and Adequacy of Utilities... ". Whether this
particular tract would or would not overtax the utilities is not
the point. The point is that there are already accumulative
impacts occuring and these impacts will, in the near future,
require expenditures of public funds to rectify the inadequacies
(see pages 3 and 4, Statement of Concerns dated 4/3/90). In
answer to questions raised by residents at two public meetings
held in February and March concerning other issues, the City
Administrator and the Director of Public Work~ stated that the
water main in Granite Street south of Nutley Street was
inadequate and would have to be replaced when funds were
37
;?';:(Ii*'L....:~ i.
-"~~ ..' ,
''f;.::.~.._~ '. ~~.-,.1j..t::...
.:;\f:.'~:f:
(2 )
available. It is interesting to note the concession by the firm
of inadequate water pressure in the Granite Street water line.
It is also interesting that the firm also seemingly ignores the
findings of the Montgomery Report (1977) and the Beck Report
(1989) on .the availability and need for more water. Both
studies concluded there is a an immediate need by the City to
find more sources of water if there is to be continued growth.
80th studies were done at the request of the City of Ashland.
It is worth noting that on Granite Street in the 300 block there
w~re 4 s~ort power outages in January, 4 in February, 1 or 2 in
March, and 1 on April 27. These may have been caused by short
length overloads of the system indicating the system is nearing
its carrying capacity.
4. "Concern for icy streets.." . liThe street I ies in such an
orientation that. the sun is not obstructed from melting snow and
frost during the"winter". This is a direct quote from the firm's
revised outline" plan. The portion of Diane's Hill Street
perpendicular to Granite Street is on a northeast facing slope.
The winter sun will at best strike the surface at an oblique
angle late in the morning and then only for a short time. The
angle and length of time the surface is exposed to the sun will
not melt snow or a heavy frost to any great degree. .The
orientation of Diane's Hill Street parallel to Granite Street is
north northeast and is on a north northeast facing slope. It is
even less exposed to direct sunlight. The statement in the
revised outline plan is, on the face of it, absurd.
5. liThe amount of slope on building envelopes..". The Land Use
Code Paragraph 18.88.030 - Procedure for Approval states:
"3. Contents. The contents for an outline plan shall
(emphasis added) be as follows:
a) A topographic map showing contour- intervals of 5 feet."
If the firm does not know where the sun comes up in winter how
can it be relied upon to determine slope angles without measuring
them? The Planning Commission must rely on its staff for
recommendations, not guess work. In additioh, the size of cuts
and fills can only be determined from maps with accurate contour
lines, not from approximations. This is another absurd response.
6. "Proposed Alternate Site Plan...". Since the topography is an
approximation and the slopes are in question on the "layouts", it"
seems highly unlikely that the locations and grades of driveways
are a reflection of reality, either. If the contours shown on the
plan are not accurate (but only approximate as stated by the
engineer in paragraph 5 of the outline plan) the statement in
paragraph 6 cannot have any validity, as the topography under the
trees is only approximate because the topographic map was
prepared from aerial photographs. This is a statement in the
revised outline plan. Hence, the flatter slopes are, at best, a
guess or they do not exist.
3~
'{'.'.'. .. <':F.""~'i,
,. :.
".
(3 )
7. "The showing of trees...". Again the Land Use Code Paragraph
18.88.030 3 states: The contents for an outline plan shall
(emphasis added) .be as follows:
g) the location of natural features such as rock
outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas (emphasis added), and
isolated preservable trees.
Certainly wooded areas could
isolated preservable trees.
considered.
be mapped and shown together with
This was not done and apparently -not
8. "The house at 365 Granite Street.-.Il. This entry was made in
response to the statement that the house was not considered and
that privacy, as an issue, was not addressed. The statement in
the revised outline plan still does not address the issue.
In order for the issue to be addressed, not as a matter of
opinion but as a fact or. set of facts, a, sight analysis should be
done. This is an analysis of the view shed, including
photographs of the existing situation, from each lot of the tract
taking into consideration the placement of the houses on the lots
and placement of windows, doors, porchs, balconies, etc. From
this data lines of sight and broad views are determined and the
question of invasion of privacy can be accurately determined. In
the case of this tract, the exercise should be done for each
house backing up to the easterly boundry of the tract as the
issue is the same for all the existing homes. The product of the
exercise then results in a mitigation plan to offset the impacts.'
If this is not done, invasion of privacy is a matter of opinion
and results in a childish Ildoes, does notll arguement.
One more extremely important issue needs to be examined
control. There are notes on the map submitted with the
outline plan: "Protect and seed fill bankll and "provide
control of fill slopes on final design.1I
erosion
revised
erosion
Seeding of fill slopes and protection with jute netting is, at
best, a sometime thing. Annual grasses and red clover do not
have deep roots. Hence, they cannot be relied on to stabilize
soils. Jute netting is not a good solution either, as it is
placed on the surface and can be underwashed, hence will not of
itself stabilize erosive soils. There are solutions such as
planting slopes with fast growing deep rooted shrubs and trees
and/or building fill slopes to physically retard erosion. Cut
slopes can also be constructed to physically retard erosion.
There is no indication these alternatives have been considered.
3Cf
( 4 )
In summary, it appears that the firm has only superficially
addressed the issues raised by the first statement of concerns
submitted by the Granite Street Neighborhood Ad Hoc Committee and
the concerns of the Ashland Planning Department staff. If the
cuts and fills for the street and driveways and the slopes were
accurately shown on the plans and profi,les, it would be obvious
that the tract would have the appearance of a miniture Park
Estates on Morton Street with its accompaning problems. An
amendment to the Land Use Ordinance controlling hillside
developement was adopted to avoid making s~ch mistakes in
planning and urban design. Accuracy is necessary in order to
make an intelligent and informed decision. It appears that the
firm hopes to avoid su~h a decision by not producing accurate
plans and profiles.
Therefore, it is again requested Planning Action 90-057 be
rejected because it is not consistent with City Plans; does not
correctly represent the existing natural features; that the
developement design does not minimize adverse effects beyond the
project site; and the developement is, in fact, not a performance
standards developement within the definition contained in Chapter
18.88 of the Land Use Ordinance.
This Supplement to the Statement of Concerns dated April 4, 1990
has been reviewed by members of the Ad Hoc Committee and reflects
the views of the committee.
LfO
AL WILLIAMS
Director of Electric Utilities
."' .~'. .J~~"':~:.
: I
if:; ~!;'_~:: . '
CITY HALL
503.482-3211
Qtit!} nfA.6~lault
ASHLAND, OREGON
97520
5-3
April 30, 1990
Mr. Dale Hofer, .P.E.
Marquess & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 490
Medford, OR 97501
Dear Dale:
After reviewing the information you sent to me on your concerns
regarding Planning Action No. 90-057, I would like to add my
comments.
1. I don't believe there are three to five outages along Granite
street per month. If there are actually this many, then someone
should let us know. I can't. recall the last time I received a
complaint about an outage on this, street.
2. We will not have a problem serving .these lots. There is not
an overload problem on this line and if there was, we would
replace it with a larger line or install another phase to this
area.
3. The city's switching facilities are not overloaded, and we
are working with Bonneville Power to have a new substation
installed so we will not have a problem in the future.
. Sincerely,
~ ., (
(jj tJ~
Al Williams, Director
Electric utilities
(
. '
o E C E I,~,j~l
r:;:'990 }~,
MA I?O!ll:ssll!
L.{I
~ &~, 11ee, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1120 EAST JACKSON STREET P.O. BOX 490 MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 TELEPHONE: (503) 772-7115
FAX: (503) 779-4079
April 26, 1990
v-2
Department of Planning and Development
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon g7520
Attn: Mr. John McLaughlin
Re: Supplemental Data Diane's Hill PUD Tentative Plat
Upper Granite Street
MAl Job No. 1-3621
Dear Sirs:
This letter is to summarize various supplemental data to our initial
submittal submitted on February 2, 1990 for the purposes of clarifying our
presentation and to supply additional information to staff and Planning
Commission. Following are our comments:
1. Diane's Hill Street Grade: The street will start down at Granite
Street with ~ short landing of about 10% slope. From there the slope
will increase to 18% to the bend in the street where the slope will
change to 15% up to the cul-de-sac which will be physically designed
to meet the appropriate slope requirements for the cul-de-sac. We
know that the Planning Commission has been endeavoring to utilize only
streets with 15% for the last few months. However, it would be a
hardship for Mr. Seitz not to be able to utilize the 18% slope for-
this short distance which is allowed by the existing Zoning
Ordinance. An 18% slope for this short of a distance closely matches
the existing grade, provides a reasonable grade for fire truck access
and allows the grade in front of the residences to be at the flatter
slope of 15%.
2. Clearance Between the Two Existing Houses Adjacent to Diane's Hill
Near Granite Street: These two houses are 69 feet apart. If we use
the standard back-to-back of sidewalk distance of 31 feet, it leaves
an average distance of 19 feet between the back of sidewalk and the
residence. This exceeds the 15 foot minimum side lot normally
allocated for corner lots. We plan to center the street within the
existing 50-foot right-of-way to maximize the distance to each
adjacent residence.
lf~
Mr. John McLaughlin
Apri 1 26, 1990
Page 2
3. Availability and Adequacy of Utilities: There has been some concern
expressed'by local citizens about the lack of availability of
utilities. In contacting Mr. Al Williams of the Ashland Electric
Department, he assures me that there is abundant power available and
that he is not aware of the constant breakdowns which were eluded to.
In talking with Mr. Dennis Barnts, I understand that the sewer and
water availability are quite adequate. The only relatively minor
deficiency is that there is not enough pressure at that point in the
water line to supply adequate pressure to the proposed residences.
Therefore, we plan to install a pumping system to maintain that
adequate pressure to the residences. We understand that there isan
abundant quantity of water available. In talking .with Mr. Steve Hall
of the Department of Public Works, he assures me that the sewage plant
is adequate ~o handle sewage for the City of Ashland for years to
come.
4. Concern for Icy Streets: The street lies in such an orientation that
the sun is not obstructed from melting the snow and frost during the
winter. The sky is generally open to the south from that general area
with the possible exception of in the cul-de-sac area. There, the
amount of shade will depend upon the location of the house and the -
trees remaining after construction.
5. The Amount of Slope on Building Envelopes: Staff had some questions
about the actual slope of the ground in the building envelope area.
However, I have personally walked the site and measured the individual
building envelopes and have found them to have the slope indicated.
The contours shown on the plan are somewhat deceptive since they are
derived from aerial photography which was taken through timber foliage
and therefore, are not accurate enough to use for building envelopes.
We showed these contours to give a general idea of the slopes
involved. The spot elevations shown on Plan Sheet 1 are accurate and
the accurate slopes can be calculated between individual shots.
6. Proposed Alternate Site Plan: We have attached an alternate site plan
layout which shows the driveway locations and slightly adjusts the
location of the building envelopes to improve the building envelope
layout over the original plan. In general, the building envelopes are
located in existing open areas. Lot 2 is the possible exception of
this where there are a number of trees in the area where Lot 2 will
need to be built to utilize the flatter slopes.
7. The Showing of Trees: We have not shown the grouping of trees on the
basic area because of the fact that there are so many. A walk of the
site will show that the houses are generally located to save trees.
When the walk-through is scheduled, we will plan on having the
building envelopes staked for reference.
L(~
;':~,JllJIii;ij,:'::" .',. .'~;; it'~~~_~ ,~."-'.: ...(-'l..';:",~
'~~'';;'';>~'''' ,
Mr. John McLaughlin
April 26, 1990
Page 3
8. The House at 365 Granite Street: Please note that we have now shown
on the site plan the location of the house at 365 Granite Street.
Please note as well that there is a considerable amount of existing
landscape screening on Lot 6 which will provide privacy between the
two residences.
9. You will note that we have incorporated Lot 7 into Lot 4.
Very truly yours,
MARQUESS.~~ ASSOCIATES, INC.
(~kld?
D~~ Hofer, P. E.
DWH/pc
,'ill~;,:: '
Lft-J
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
April 10, 1990
s-\
PLANNING ACTION: 90-057
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz
LOCATION: Granite Street, near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets
. ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
Rural :Residential
Physical Constraints
Street & Greenway Dedications
Performance Standards
18.16
18.62
18.82
18.88
REQUEST: Outline Plan approval for a 6-lot subdivision
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
There are no Planning Actions of record for this site.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
This application involves a 9.58 acre parcel divided by three different
zoning districts. The proposed development would occur on the portion
zoned RR-.5, Low Density Residential.
The parcel is located off of Granite Street, across the street from Lithia
Park. Access is provided to the parcel from Granite Street via a 49' wide
by 198' deep strip of land. The topography of the property is diverse, with
slopes ranging from around 17 percent, at the portion of the flag closest to
Granite Street, to in excess of 50 percent along the upper half of the site.
Many large mature trees are situated on the parcel, with the density of
vegetation increasing with an increase in slope.
The applicant is proposing a six lot subdivision using the Performance
Standards Options. A full city street will be constructed to access the lots,
terminating at a cul-de-sac. The road will have a 20' wide driving surface
with curbs, a sidewalk on one side and six on-street parking spaces, three
located within the center of the cul-de-sac and three in a parking bay.
Density calculations have been provided below:
~0
".~::'~":" ~''''<.....~}'~
Base Density (RR-.5-P):
Energy Bonus:
Total Allowable:
1.5 dwelling units/acre x 3.54 = 5.31 units
(20%) x 5.31 = 1.06 units
6.36 units
The applicant is proposing that the remaining 6.04 acres of property be left
in a natural state on its own tax lot, separate from those in the .
development. An irrigation ditch traverses the upper part of this property.
A trail is shown along the ditch on the City's official street dedication map.
The ordinance requires dedication of a pedestrian easement along the
ditch when: the development requires a planning action; the development
results in an increase of pedestrian traffic; and the subject property
contains a future greenway dedicated on the official map. Staff believes
this application meets the above criteria and recommends that the path be
dedicated as part of this proposal.
II. Proiect Impact
Staff has several concerns with the project as proposed. These are listed
below:
Street Desia:D
The ordinance requires that a street not exceed a maximum grade of 15
percent. However, where topography requires a grade greater than 15
percent, a grade of no greater than 18 percent may be permitted for no
more than 200 feet. The applicant's plan indicates a basic street grade of
15 percent with 18 percent for a portion not to exceed 200'. Staff believes
that the grade of shaded roads should not exceed the. required grade of 15
percent. If the Commission agrees that a portion of the grade must exceed
15 percent, we believe that it should not include the portion of street
running perpendicular to Granite Street, nor the area in curve of the
street.
A typical street cross-section has been presented, indicating the str~et cut
and the existing slope and the new slope and cuts. By comparison with the
slope indicated on the plan map, the actuaf slope is much greater than that
indicated on the typical, and therefore the cut and/or fill will also be
greater than that shown. Staff believes that an relatively accurate cross-
section should be provided for this review.
The existing grade through the area where the cul-de-sac is to be located
is approximately 28 percent. The finished grade for the cul-de-sac should
be around 6 percent. No information has been submitted regarding the
size of cuts which will be necessary to achieve a 6 percent grade, nor has
PA90-057
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
April 10, 1990
Page 2
l{0
"~"_ . -;.'.: ;:!'1.4'-..', "
:~:,.;~~~~.-. .
any information been submitted explaining how these cuts are to be .
retained. The resulting grade diffrence on the cul-de-sac when the grade is
cut from 28% to 6% is around 20 feet. This could involve a great deal of
cut and fill on erosive granite soils. No information has been provided
indicating general areas of cuts and fill.
Lot Desia:n
Portions of the building envelopes for lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear to exceed
40 percent. These will need to be redesigned in order to insure that all
area within the proposed envelope is less than 40 percent. It appears more
appropriate to combine lots 1 and 2 in order to allow for a sufficiently
sized building envelope. We are not sure that even if these lots are
combined that a buildable lot could be developed.
Another concern involves the location and design of driveways for lots 1, 2
and 3. Due to the size of cuts necessary for street construction, information
concerning driveway grade should be submitted. Staff would recommend
that driveway grades not exceed 15 percent. Also, the applicant may want
to consider the use of common driveways as well.
Lot 7 - To Remain In A Natural State
Staff does not feel that it is appropriate to incorporate the remaining 6.04
acres into a separate tax lot. First, this would in essence create a
landlocked parcel with no legal access to, nor frontage along, a city street.
Second, its creation may present an enforcement problem down the road.
As time goes by and members of the planning staff come and go, it could
be incorrectly determined to be a legal buildable lot. Staff would
recommend that the remaining acreage be:
1) Owned and maintained in common as open space by the
property owners in the subdivision; or
2) Consolidated into one of the other proposed lots. .
We believe that the lot should remain in common open space.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Outline Plan Approval are found in Chapter 18.88 and are as
follows:
a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose
of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance.
PA90-057
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
April 10, 1990
Page 3
l(l
b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the
plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common
areas.
c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond
the project site and that the character of.the neighborhood be considered in the
design of the development.
d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to,
water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban
storm drainage.
e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause
shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential
development of adjacent lands be impeded.
f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and
common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have
the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire.
g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as
efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable
energy sources, including solar, where practical.
h) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff believes most of the concerns related to street design need to be addressed
at least in conceptual form at the outline Plan stage. Engineering details could
be addressed at the time of Final Plan approval, with additional engineering
information. The Commission must determine if the submitted information
provides an adequate basis for approval of the initial street design. As stated
earlier, however, significant portions of the building envelopes for lots 1 and 2
appear to exceed 40 percent in slope. Also, insufficient information has been
submitted addressing driveway access to these lots and the extent of cutting and
filling which will be required. Compared to the level of detail reqired of the Ivy
Lane and Roca Street development, both of which were at substantially less
grade, this application leaves many questions unanswered. Staff cannot
recommend approval of Outline Plan for six lots prior to:
1) Additional information being presented assuring that adequately sized
envelopes of less than 40 percent are available,
PA90-057
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland .Planning Department -- Staff Report
April 10, 1990
Page 4
Lfq
'. '.~"I~"'~" .' .;' ~' ~'. - -:'\;.'; ,'.,
2) That driveways can be designed to insure safe access onto the abutting street,
at 20% grades or less,
3) That proper street grades, including the cul-de-sac grade, can be obtained.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the application, Staff
recommends the following conditions:
1) That lots 1 and 2 be combined into a single lot, reducing the total number of
lots from 6 to 5.
2) That a 10' wide pedestrian easement be dedicated to the City of Ashland
along the irrigation ditch. Pedestrian easement to be shown on Final Plan and
recorded on the survey plat..
\ ~. "
[ \ ,\! 3) That the new street not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent, measured
I.. ,; from the centerline of the street.
Ii
4) That building envelopes be presented on the Final Plan and final survey plat.
5) That all requirements of the Fire Department concerning hydrant
improvements be met.
6) That a final erosion control plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan,
addressing the interim and permanent measures associated with the development
of the new street, driveways and home construction. Plan to include the use of
terracing and rock walls on cut slopes and netting and revegetation on the fill"
slopes, with provisions for irrigation and maintenance.
7) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan,
addressing the removal of trees during street construction, driveway construction
and home building. All trees outside the street right-of-way and building
envelopes shall be clearly marked on a map and on site for review and approval
by the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission. Consideration shall be given to
erosion control and wildfire potential.
8) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and comply
with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such requirements to be
included in the CC&R's.
9) That all requirements of the Electric Department be met, including locating a
transformer, if required.
10) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be provided as
required by the City of Ashland.
PA90-057
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
April 10, 1990
Page 5
Lfq
11) That a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Public
Works Department, specifically addressing the storm water drainage.
PA90-057
Gary and Diane Seitz
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
April 10, 1990
Page 6
. . ,~.( :~~ .~~~'"
[;fJ
,~,,",--~._.:. ...A~'..L.!.,..-!~u_'~:'.~ ,,~.. .",l~''':'~:.. ' ;.;~l.~lt..':'~~'::~\:.;.~. ~. ...l~~ ,~'.~','~:,;~,-,,~<'~'r .,.;, ~~".2C.L~6. ~_~.~~. ';.~~~::~i:';. ."
....j~~.~~~~~ ,~~:~:.-,~~]i~~'I,:~;"~
ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal.
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING
on the following request with respect to the
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held
before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
on the 8TH DAY OF' MAY, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. at
the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
. the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right
of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria arc available for inspection at no cost and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will he
available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are' available at the Ashland
Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chairshallhave the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the
applicable criteria.
Uyou have any questions orcomments concerning this request, please feel free
to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City I lall, at 488-
5305.
fV\- \
P~OJ~G'- s:?
. (
-
../----, -~'::':'lrlo ,
." ~~~
/ 'Ill , I. ~ , IJ-\l.
/' I' "'''', IJ/- _____
/ 1_'~~~~;;/~'~~/-:,;:, /~,. ~ _ _ _---
. SIJq. ~/~4.:C:V r,~ '
t ~ .>r4.T1r.
"r: ;~~I~~;';~/:
'f: ,
\J-:f':~\/E"p
""r,( <l\s
, e",
\......'r"
?A .10-057
100.0'
100.0'
/ C'Q~
/
I
/
I '---t \ ,.."
/ "". , 1'-......... '.. " .)
I' !,' _AU"PT ............-.. I' ~-\
: I -~ ---:r------t:1.E'(E.!<'l---..i..~.~RJ:<l17JO'I\.ll_
/' ; I r :,..._.....:.. -I", r-DiNlt's~
I I '..', I I "'-1 I , (tiN<< Of S1) .,....
j I L J:: I ........ n r - J -
I '..J I '- - - - . J .,.
.. -______I_~_.. ...__~~"""y.~~.~
- ------------ - -~-~~~~~--
...a...
PLANNING ACTION 90-057 is a request for Outline Plan approval for a 6-lot subdivision
under the Performance Standards Option located on Granite Street, near the intersection
of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family
Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 800; Tax Lot: 900.
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz
,. .'..
J I l~", \ l
o \ 1\ J l j l L.../\ l, I. (~r\ \ \ \)
/ls II L,) J~)I t~~:./ IrVG C:~;/IIIJ/)"/O'V
C t\ '\ () \ J\:,\Jc~\, cL
c9 () [r\> \ II \ (, \ ,\ I A,) kl c" J, {)rz. 7 J 5 21j
r< t: 'Plc'-I\\\ \.,1 G i-} diu/v 90 - 057' /AI L I 900
0-5
,. !Jl~- )J)( L"'l CUA, ")./. I ~/V) .'.. .
l-h""-1 /1 r~::>l d "-,,~, D\ lis k L", 1 SII1/cC- /97;)"
, Ci.. \ d L0 ; , I t 'v c , , u rV [xL..! r l) \ iii) pc\. l "h, C,j I \ I) 0 lie' .\J i)(,_
pn.! e(],L1 dl~L\ l '11\0, I~\_ oCH\ \:, ,',Pr -:,PU'>CdSL( WJ cJi,~1 ~n
oJ -3 L/ -3 G (("," 4 <-) _L I) (, c\) C C-A- ~L' ) Cc; I Ii ",e .,1':-" 'h) G. '\
.-1 W'l~\'\ -to. be ",sJlcJccl L.J I ll\ ..11\c I) \(,)1 l)t.-~ 0\--1 \"\L.
"PJ' ICciV~)I;~J ~L\j(~I~',IIL)' ~L~)ll\ Ik'\ lx, ~,bk I, (J~>\~ I k" ?u,b\IL
, ,J ~VI 'j C Lt '- I \ell i \ ,II b_IJ" I ,\/:._, . \ .J~C0' "e '-) (~ I \ \l ,. (0 ""',, \ Dlc;l,
. "L )) (,u c i LU,\ \ \ '\ ~; IX'\ t ..) ()oK ~ \ .)'\ L ('1 111<:'..- ,,)ud \\c I-::';'G:"
, Ch l -I-~ L E. \J 'J (\ ,~Ol-J \ ,~ ( ;) L, b k.~ /Ji:\fi ,S (LlC,J \ Cl , \ d el, c "v J I .,1 ')
C \'\Cd'G.L~U-- ,}\ ~~cJ{~L r: I(J~~, n)~.. c;"perccdc iHD~'B<(, ~lA."("-\
CJlcd'(\.( \ Lr.,,_ (,c, A:'\\\c",rl (u) J e::, pe.ud \ i j)) ( \.) l:4lL\i 0\
L,t \\ l c" !-tu~ k.
71Jc d:,uc.lu eu" (S -tl,!; , (f\p,) ~)(,(lf\ ,') J)J\ 01 ':ll G "I
c:cc rc.cr Co, \ ",V J c'- U Cln (l.\ l <- , ~ I IO,-Jr'c ,'" :,~ y \ '-, )\)W,\t', ('( (~J \ I
,J-tEJ\\ 4 l ) -/0 /0 (de !/Yc J)CC) 'S-f"CCT lll) ':lcF !o OL\.U",
,,?,rDper~i G,.,J r(~'IJel\lL /!)Q,) /.'.; Q//Cl0Cd. /); (Gd~,W~
. \~;\d. ~ \\10 UJVC,ClCe k\)k_ (\.~ -IIJu,c I ') (d<2T'C'~C (~~'l';\\ Ii, ,
-I-h Lei C)\' ~ (5, l,0 c..'~. -I ( . c;,,"'-'\ ~ crI J) L 1](,,--_')-\ 1'''-0.:..-\, L) 't ,') ) 00. \ v'\ Ci
) ,", . (" ( \' \ \ ~ - I
.-}-)( ~~ec-\ \,~'-~~\\\C- -- \0'.\"\ Du..-r-- ('e~')\C(,~\l~__ -II) L I/l)(~i-cl{ltr1((')lc
- - . I
0\ tICS (; l. c., J nC)l -, C 0,,\ J I h.:. 00\:., : Ii C\Y\ \,(\ ll., () \ -the
6Z
c. \. \
~. (- (-_: ..-\--
:;,~:.;[{.~. . .
:,
" ."
.; '~.'~~~t;/.~
. ,
, I
;Ji {.\!~ .
:, ,-~'
.,":'!JL
;~ ~:t'
/ .
~~d' \ C,i\ l ~ \ \ \ic,-uf ~,()) "-1. J~))0 l\ ~\,' '_(\i'i \ I I~n L/ -~I)
\ \.) ( C( 0 4 ,- c <<I S " , ,-I c... c \, I 'cs 7 c ..L \ ~,I \i) e q eel )-\ h ""
/1, II s\ c...le C\:, -+ \ ,d \1 L u d \C;\,j(j \, f,))l.A u, J 1)) v -\ o,V S-\ ((~d
~lc,- ~ J L0 c::.. -I he" \)'D{cY\. -I h '- . en~ \f,-\u..b cl'v \),!.),\) .
_L \-- -\ \, "-- c \1 y ~ " L ~ \ \, ) :, L \. L d \ 'J \ "Op)
. (\ el( J) k U C-ilH'_" ~)(.:. '~~,T''-l ) +- -I<:., h<::.. c. Ile,u (.d.
C',,-CL( 'J~ '-~\,-'J Cu,f' (e) l' \/(>.>\ +k\_ 11('-" .\ r(c~ '~oV')C'--0\)l.(l
bc~ Lve "-n / DD -fe,'! 5D 0 '\ ~~'< '\)~JkV,-J ~ ,-\) eiJ--\ 11 \ '",--,
L.JC.~~~ .\'!'(.)\\\ (~;\r(~i\\\( S-\(CL~ . r hlj Li; I' I-Jllo~..J u.~
4((()::'-/\'; . + I, e:: ((rJ_i~ u\ G,^~' I,) \ GA \It . C:\"'f(, .
.. 0 <( \) ,,\ u em (<\ f u\ f\ ~.,(.\fc\l\\ (, (u, c" (L pI: / (leI I) )
. Cl .~ O~'-':S'- J
'J
." .it' /
----7-
/ /l,..:t I} I(
J/UL, -GI?~ ,:/~JJ;l\ l'.~
-r'
.': '. //// / ./
"--,.-:>fI /, / .['Ll ~ l~'
./,/0/"" -~../ ' . --
/ .
I.
7' //) I ~
/'
//
6Y
Notice is hereby given the PUBLIC HEARING on the'followh' ;aquest with respect
to the ASHLAND LAND U~t: ORDINANCE will be held b~fore tile ASHLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION on the. 10th DAY OF APRIL, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. at the
ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient ~pecificity to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the land Use Board of Appeals (lUBA). Failure.
to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for
Inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for
Inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. All materials are available at the
Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those In attendance concerning this request.
The Chait shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria.
" you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates of the Ashland Planning
Department, City Hall, at 488-5305.
_/''--------:... -:!:.I'IG4rIO I
-- V
:l / ~~4.k.\L
Y:u"'.-o/- ' _________
/~,,~'~~~~ ',~~ ";';~. /~'iQ ~
S'~&t> _ ';.'G,L ~ rr::>
t 'lco .>r", 11;.
'l.e ~~~,~._..,_~. ,._ ~ ,
4r,".J,J -......
,~r .
\J.:: t ,-4\/E' C>
'rEi' 'Is
I.. e",
""-IrJ)
'?A .10-057
~
'f'f<OJE:C, sr,,:
,-- I
( I
100.0'
.&.1.,.\1\
"/---
y~
Zl~--'
I e'-'r
I ''0
/
I
/
I
I : - ",
/ .' '
I I
I
/
..-.--l:__. - --- - - --.- i
I "- I
t;.tr'J;~T_;::,c.. 'p, t1 E-( E "'..
, ~ ~ ~
I ':., ~:
I
I
.J
------- ._, '-.. - -- ~- ~~"!.:~3__
".a...
PLANNING ACTION 90-057 is a request for Outline Plan approval for a 6-lot subdivision
under the Performance Standards Option located on Granite Street, near the intersection
of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family
Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 800; Tax Lot: 900.
APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz .
68
o~~
TO: ASHLAND PLANNNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: PLANNING ACTION 90-057
APRIL 3, 1990
Attached is a Statement of Concerns and a request for rejection
of the six lot subdivision of tax lot 900 applied for in the
Planning Action 90-057.
8~
',' :",);;;'
. .~~..,r~.'.,......'. -...... ..
i'.1.:.;.-...;.$....;;:>...:.,>;:..
. ..;.:t: .1~""".""V..".;,'
:' . ~ .~ ':...
-~,,:'. ~ '4..;'r.:.~...~"',..~. ;,..' ..
Statement of Conce~ns On Planning Action 90-057
1) That the development
with the stated pu~pose of
Development O~dinance.
is consistent with City Plans and
this chapte~ of the Land Use
If the City Plans a~e to include an Open Space Element of the
City Gene~al Plan and to p~ese~ve the ambiance of the City and
prese~ve the aesthetic qualities of Lithia Pa~k, the p~ide and
joy of Ashland citizens, then the development is not consistent
with the City Plans.
No~ is the development consistent with Chapte~ 18.16.010 of the
Land Use O~dinance: liThe pu~pose of the R.R. is to stabilize and
p~otect the ~u~al ~esidential cha~acte~istics of a~eas which,
because of topoq~aphy. level of se~vices. o~ othe~ natu~al o~
development facto~s a~e best se~ved by a la~q.e lot desiqnation"
(emphasis added). The p~esent land use designation is RR - .5P.
2) That the existing and natural features of the land have
been conside~ed in the plan of the development
If the slope angle, given as per cent of slope, is an existing
and natu~al featu~e, then the develope~ has not conside~ed
existing and natu~al featu~es in the plan of development. Most
of the pa~cel is shown on the maps in the file as a 50% slope.
The exceptions a~e the building pad sites. These sites a~e not
now at the slope angles indicated on the map'as the~e a~e no
b~eaks in the topog~aphic lines on topog~aphic maps of the site.
A physical inspection of the site will ve~ify the validity of the
above statement.
Section 18.62.050 of the Land Use O~dinance, Land Use
Classifications,
pa~ag~aph c: E~osive and Slope Failu~e Lands liThe following
lands a~e classified as E~o~ive and Slope Failu~e
lands:
1-all a~eas defined as e~osive and slope failu~e
lands on the physical const~aints map and which
have a slope of 40% o~ g~eate~."
The tax lot in question falls into that classification.
Pa~ag~aph E of Section 18.62.050 may also apply. Pa~ag~aph E is
as follows:
"Seve~e Const~aints Lands Lands with seve~e development
cha~acte~istics which gene~ally limit no~mal development. The
following lands a~e classified as Seve~e Const~aints Lands: 2.
All lands with a slope g~eate~ than 50%.
The plan is also inco~~ect and has not conside~ed the existing
dwelling located at 365 Granite St~eet, located on the flag lot
immediately below lot 6. This is evident because the dwelling is
,61
~...:<...':L~~' ~'.~' ,
,a' ,-. _ .. . ,.i' ..;. ,'. .
" :-\[;r.illi;- ~::. .,: : ,: . ~ ;'~~~,~:~_:~>,11Jii.~~~.~. ;.~,; .:.);~~.1 ;'J~', V.'~ ,itMl.fti;r'~j
~ :,;" :: ~ "i'I'" Ll. >'- ,"~~( t~\.~'.:~\~;-:'
(2 )
not on any of the maps included in the file.
3) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect
on the. areas beyond the project site and that the charactgr of
the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development.
The development design has not considered adverse effects beyond
the project site. As an example of adverse effects not
considered the residence immediately to the south of the new
street, Diane's Hill, is not now a corner lot. When the present
owners moved in some years ago there was no expectation that the
curb cut to the immediate north would ever be a public street. A
reasonable assumption at the time was that the curb cut was f~r ~
sinqle family dwelling, that there would be only one house on the
parcel. However, if the Planning Commission and the City Council
approve this development the house immediately to the south of
"Diane's Hill" will be a corner lot and traffic will be within 30
feet of the owners' home - not the privacy they have lived with
for many years. That is not minimizing adverse effects beyond
the site.
Lot 6 is situated in such a way that any house built on it will
overlook the bedrooms of the house located at 355 Granite Street.
The privacy the residents have enjoyed for many years will be
gone. These people never expected to have a house and lot in
such close proximity to their backyard and bedrooms. Again, this
is an impact that is difficult to minimize.
Another adverse effect: visitors to Lithia Park now look up and i
see a wooded hillside, even though lot 7 may be left in its
natural state. Most of the pleasing vista wil~ be lost because
of the development needs to construct IlDiane's Hillll and the
large cul-de-sac that is a part of the development.
Another adverse effect is clearing the parcel for development and
leaving bare ground in the after condition. The decomposed
granitic soils present on site are highly errodable. 'This factor
combined with the steep slopes will make errosion inevitable.
This can and will result in flooding and mud slides on the
downhill proerties. The costs of this type of development can
be high and mitigation, at best, is temporary. Park Estates on
Morton Street is an example of the results. The recent work
covering the subject, The Control of Nature by John McPhee, gives
many examples of the economic and human costs of this type of
development.
The character of the neighborhood will be changed. Chapter
18.16.010 defines the Rural Residential designation of the
parcel. The proposed designation is not consistent with the R.
R. designation~ This is not being considered in the proposal.
The neighborhood if not rural is, at least suburban in character.
6~
(3 )
The forest behind the existing homes in the neighborhood give one
a feeling of open space, of living in a quiet country atmosphere.
This will not be the situation in the aftermath of the
development. There will be less privacy, there will be no deer,
no squirrels, and fewer birds. The forest will be gone. These
impacts cannot be minimized in this proposal. For those that
have lived in the neighborhood for any length of time and had
some knowledge of the vacant parcel a six lot subdivision with a
full residential street was never considered.
In considering this application, it is the responsibility of the
Ashland Planning Commission to consider the impacts on the
neighborhood and residents and weigh these considerations against.
those of the developer. The existing situation guarantees the
developer a single dwelling unit in a rural setting, nothing
more. The developer has no constitutional right 'to an inordinate
profit on his purchase of a lottery ticket nor on the purchase of
any parcel of land. The change in land use and approval of the
development will give him this.
4) That adequate public facilities can be provided, including
but not limited to ..., ..., paved access to and through the
development ...
A cul-de-sac, by its very nature, is not a through street. In
urban design where brush/forest fires are a major consideration
the use of cul-de-sacs are a hinderance to fire fighting
equipment. Under the defination given in Section 18.62.090 the
parcel is classified as wildfire land. A fifteen foot
ingress/egress easement shown over lots 3 and 4 is not paved
access through the development nor is it adequate for fire
fighting or other emergency equipment. Park Estates on Morton
Street is also located on land classified as wildfire land. That
development has both ingress and egress via Ashland Loop Road.
This development will not have through ingress and egress.
Again, The Control of Nature considers the subject on a wider
scale.
5) That the development of the land and provision of services
will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the
surrounding area...
There are periodic power outages along Granite Street now,
averag,ing about 3 to 5 per month. This is caused, we are
informed, by an overloading of the City's switching facilitie~.
The cumulative effect of adding 6 additional residences, Good
Cents Homes, will not improve the situation. Obviously, there is
nothing the developer can do about this.
Water service is another critical situation. Ashland has not
progressed to the point where fishermen have to pump water into a
.69
~ti t-J.,tI'"l.''''..-.. '. 'l~,.:l..,i_~\.;'.~ft 'i;...,., :...t<1:..~.:J, ;;. i.~.'''I'~j:';~
~. :..'.",~'~..~
( 4)
river in order for the steel head to enter as is the situation in
the Carmel River on the Monterey Peninsula in California. But
the situation is critical as is documented in the Montgomery
Study - Water Resources Management Plan and Facility Study, 1977
- and the Beck Report. - City of Ashland Water Supply Report,
1989. It should be pointed out that these two reports are twelve
years apart. Nothing has been done in the twelve years. Yet the
City c~ntinues to add water users to the water supply facilities.
Bringing the discussion to the specific situation, both the
Director of Public Works and the City Administrator have stated
in public meetings that the water mains in Granite Street are at
a point where they must be replaced as soon as funds are
available. In fact, this has been done north of Nutley Street
over the last year an a half plus. That project has and will in
the future put more pressure on the older pipes in Granite to the
south, to paraphrase the Director of Public Works, requicing
replacement of those lines sooner than originally planned. This
is recognized by the developer in having a pressure pump on the
water main serving the proposed tract. The question remains what
will be the impact on the water supply to the existing homes on
Granite Street downstream of the tract?
The developer plans to provide TID water
subdivision. Pressure in the system has
recent addition of users of the system.
users will have a cumulative adverse
possibly the downstream availability of
drought year, such as the present one.
of this factor in the application.
to all lots in the
been affected by the
Adding six additional
impact on pressure and
water, especially in a
There is no recognition
The sewage treatment plant is also running at capacity and this
has been acknowledged in public meetings and in articles in,the
Daily Tidings. There have been spills of raw sewage into Bear
Creek. Again to cite the City Adminsitrator and the Director of
Public Works, the Granite Street Sewers must be replaced as soon
as possible because of age deterioration and because; ot
inadequate capacity.
There is nothing in the P I an of Developmen t tha t addresses a'ny of
the issues rai~ed above, even on the specific level of public
services to Granite Street. Perhaps, the Planning Commission
should require the developer to install new services to all
residents living on Granite street before approval of the
development. That is highly unlikely. It is however certain that
because of the present limitations on services that if this
developement is approved that it will impede potential
development on adjacent lands as well as having adverse impacts
on existing residences. When public facilities have reached
capacity the incremental cumulative impacts need not be large to
over tax those facilities.
bO
:,:r"~~.~"-.i~~..'~-.~',: '.~" ;f:.:...~...~~'~~"'t..;.:'~::;.:.~~~ '-M" ~. ';'", :":;'~~~',,:'h. .....:'.;tl..~ '. ;;:.':(:~t:}'"', ,-,:p,t!-.,14.~.',< "~'l{;"'~':.r~.~:-:
.. ./', f~
,f.... .
( 5)
The following comments are directed to Chapter 18.88, section~
18.88.050 Street Standards, 18.88.080' P-Overlay Zone, and
18.88.090 Performance Standards Guidelines.
The parcel now has a zoning designation RR-.5 P. Section
18,88.80 the P-Overlay zone states: "The purpose of the P-overlay
zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been
largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas
which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property. topooraphv.
veoetation. or natural hazards. are more suitable for development
under Performance Standards'! (emphasis added). All of the
factors underlined are present on the parcel.
The'cul-de-sac is proposed to be 560 feet long. Subparagraph 6,
paragraph A, 18.88.050 Street Types states: "Dead End. Only lanes
may be dead end roads. No dead end road shall exceed 500 feet in
lenoth. Dead end roads must terminate in an improved turnaround
as defined in the Performance Standards ouidelines....II.
A cul-de-sac is a dead end road with a turnaround.
-The street is at the maximum grade of 18% for the maximum
distance of 200 feet and continues at a grade of 151. for an
additional 360 feet. The street is on a north east facing slope
in one of the coldest parts of Ashland. In winter with snow and
or ice on the road for much of the time, will fire fighting
equipment be able to reach the homes in the tract?
Section 18.88.090 covers Performance Standards Guiedlines.
In the guidelines heading "Neighborhood Compatibilityll it states
that "It is required that the outline plan include all areas
within 160 ft. of the project, and all buildings and trees must
be shown". Further on in the same section it states: "Secondly,
the project should strive to ensure that adjacent properties
maintain the privacy of their rear yards. This is especially a
problem when second-story windows look into rear yards or other
private spaces. The design should minimize this type of
problem. II The house at 365 Granite Street that abuts ttie parcel
is not shown on any map in the file. The only reference to
privacy is liThe forested area to the west is too steep for
residential construction and therefore constitutes a privacy
buffer." All of the existing housing is to the east and north of
the development. How does the privacy buffer function as a
buffer for the neighborhood to the east and north?
The guidelines emphasize neighborhood compatibility and reduction
or no impacts on existing neighborhoods. IIf"Jany problems can be
resolved by contacting the property owners beforehand and polling
them as to what their concerns and values are." When was this
done?
Diane's Hill
development.
PUD is in fact NOT allperformance standards"
~l
,... . . :\.
C,, ",
,",1._':1.
,;1.-:; J"~ .'
(6 >.
In light of the above discussion. we, the undersigned'object to
the development as presented because the plan is .not consistent
with the City Plans; does not correctly represent. the existing
and natural features and has not considered them;. that the
development design does not minimize adverse effects beyond the
project site and that the character of the~eighborhoodhas not
been considered in the design of the development; tnat adequate
public facilities cannot be provided and that there is not paved
access .through the development; that the development of the land
will cause shortages of necessary public facilites in the
immediate neighborhood and the surrounding area, ~nd finally'the
development is in fact not a performance standards development
within the definition contained in Chapter 18.88.
"
.-
We respectfully .request that the Planning Commission reject this
application.
D~e., ~ ~~~~
~&'( -4~ ~ Y1-?~O
~~ ' 3i/~/fD
3~s 7; 1/ '
~!.ad Ca4 iiofd~J2.- 3/c2rJ?t5
3il >#~.~ .
~~~
,. .7'./'7' ~~
of~ xl ~
-35~~~.
b-~ 'I~ ,3/31/QO
~ ~,7/3(~tJ
33)~ 'I. ' , / /.
/ll . ~I/~
~. ~/~/#~ "?"
T~~~~ ' ;:; 6~Jc--.5:;~IJ'/r() ,
.'J 1h1 O)~K gez.5 ~ntT~ 3()11f?~?
~.,' ~ -_.. ...... .w",".. ~,..~ ".- '-~-_'!"-,-"~ "~;,~_.': ~71"7:1~r,~"'i:-:~~~1: ~,Y;::~,,-,,'Tr:~:;; ,
3/~ to
3/31/90
,~,'e~
3f). G~/-le. '. %....
~~ e.(Q" v
3/3//9tJ
/,:i~~ :'.~-'
.i~'f~'~~-~': '" ",', ;\~:~~_.. 'J'.!~-':14l:)..~~'\~'~'I~f\ "l,~':'!;'~>!!~~~t:~:.
.) "
i '-~',: '-,j I,~ 2l';~'~~~'~\~ ;
J
April 2, 1990
o~A-
The Planning Commission
The City'or Ashland
The issues in Planning Action 90-057 eA~end well beyond the
boundries or the
applicant's drawing.'
It
is
ror those
responsible in city government to decide whether:
--the deeper intrusions into the woods
of the canyon is prudent
in this designated zone or "wild rire lands"
which are located
less than 1..000 yds From our city's water" supply.
--the addition of PUD's on upper Granite street
taxes
our
somewhat ant iquated syst.ems of stIPpl y for watel',
se'-Jer, storm
drain, and electricity beyond prudent limits.
--the tranquility of the Park can be maintained with the
addit.ion or several PUD's in the canyon given the already heavy
collector
street
auto
and
pedestrain
trarfic
which
Grani te/Wi nburn Way nO,,"J accommod.ate.
--the Western wall of the Park is to be faced with decks and
shimmering sheets
of glass
in place of the natural
rorest
backdrop which now adds to the beauty of the area.
:lP'i~
., I
..._ _,..i-:: ". ,. ..: ,:.l.'_~L'}~.1!,'" ..i"",i,'i.<:. .i,'-:,.'.~ !.'! ,~,~...'L~"'i:~.,: ;;'.~:J, I. - "';":'~'\'A ",,~'..; '~..i il,:~ j.~ ,I' ~ :'~l ~'a.."'.JJlI:ir fu',,* ~ -
.....:;.'L," "':.'At '., :"!l'.,j'. S~..4f..."'\'.'l. '..,~~R ;. .' . ,....~>>-;;.X\ "'''~~.d Jj.'t .
:";.~'. ,;.., .
These are the issues which reach beyond the appli.cant's drawing.
Respectfully submitted,
e.tQ~
Carl C. Oates
h~ f<.. (~
Dennis K. Friend
//.'//~"). /) ~j
~t1-a-~ L .
Rosalie C. Oates
J(~^- .xI. ~~t
Li nda .5'. Fr- iend
36'/ G..,ct tll +-e-
3 b 5"" Gi-a: 11<' fe S.l-.
\'c~ :~';.~ ~J..L" ~;
The Planning Commission
Ci ty or Ashland
March 31,1980
Concerning Planning Action 80-057
For the past
1.5 years we have known that
the applicants would
be building on t.he proport.y above
our home, and that they would
. have a dr'iveway 8GCeSS along the side or our home to Granite St.
In preparation for the day or home development, 13 year~s ago \Je
planted several
trees along this lot line to screen orr this
driveway.
In numerous conversa.tions with the applicants over
the years we were gi.ven to understand that t.hey would build one
or possibly two hom(~s on their acreage to preser'va the natural
setting as much as possible.
We then had some assurance that
the character
or the neighborhood. would be unchanged by this
type
or development.
We First learned that
a P lann(:"1d Vni t
DEJvelopment was being proposed when we received the
the public hearing (March 22, 1880).
notice or
The PUD proposed changes the access drive'.J8Y into a public
street
with curbs and sidewalks
less than 10 reet rrom our
fireplace on the north side
or our home.
As pointed out in
IIStatement or Conc8rns" which we signed, this pr'oposed street.
development
is
not
in accordance with
Chapter
18.16.010
concerning changes to the character or the neighborhood.
(pH
. --",',. .-'....
We believe that
the applicants have
the same
rights ror
We don 0 t ,
development of' a home site and home on their property as we had.
the development or a subdivision containing rive
however, believe that such rights extend to include
or the land on upper Granite St.
f'or others. and a radical change to the rural residential nature
or six houses
For the above
reason alone, we believe that the application ror
a PUD should be denied.
~L/e e O-CL-4 ~7
Carl C. Oates
36'1
6rtt h L +e S..I-,
Rosalie C. Oates
Ct~-ue {0.{;/
~ t,~~: ..:~ -<'f It....:.:- ..:.:..' . ~ t..~:] ;L. ~j~.:(. ,;.'~ .:. '.;_ .~.~,,~ .~. .-.:,,;., . -;:~ \",~ (," . ".;~=li1JJm:t;,' ;~:~: :.\.. '.;:-:~ ~._:..r <~7~\: r.: :.:1 :~/:i:':~f.,.:~~/)}~I'
..( ",', i~;"~':i-~.'.~ _..... ~ ~"~~.:; 4 ...~~.~:~~::.~~.: ~ ~~~ir~'.:~:~:: 4- ,:::.J~~~.,~. ,:'\' 1:~: ,\.. '~. ~.'i~si~':~l~ '\ t:~(
~ &~, 1He. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1120 EAST JACKSON STREET P.O. BOX 490 MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 TELEPHONE: (503) 772-7115
FAX: (503) 779-4079
February 2, 1990
Department of Planning and Development
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Attn: Mr. John McLaughlin
Re: Facts of Finding
Diane~s Hill PUD
Outline Plan (Tentative Plat)
T39S R1E S8DD TL900
Upper Granite Street
MAl Job No. 1-3621
r.p --- \
Dear Sirs:
This letter is to address the "Facts of Finding" required for this project
in accordance with Ashland's Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.88.030.A.
Paragraphs 3.k and 4. The following comments are keyed with the sub-items of
Paragraph k.
Item k1: The character of the proposed development and the manner in which
it has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards
Concept. The lot boundaries were located so as to utilize the
flatter slope areas of the land involved. Single Family Residential
building sites are located on land which slopes less than 40%. Most
of the forested area is above the residences on steeper slopes.
Item k2: The proposed manner of financing. The improvements are planned
to be installed prior to the sale of lots. The bonding process is
not expected to be used for improvements.
Item k3: The present ownership of all the land included within the
development. All lands involved are owned in their entirety by
Gary and Diane Seitz, the developers.
Item k4: The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and
private thoroughfares. There are no specific open or common
areas. The building envelopes have been located to avail privacy of
view as much as possible.
to6
Mr. John McLaughlin
Department of Planning and Development
February 2, 1990
Page 2
Item k5: The proposed time schedule of the development. Plans are to
complete engineering drawings and land surveying this summer and to
begin construction of improvements this fall or next spring after the
rainy season ends in March or April.
Item k6: The findings of the applicant showing that the development meets
the criteria set forth in this Ordinance and the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan. We are hereby addressing the criteria which
covers this item as set forth in Section A4 following hereafter.
The following comments are keyed directly to Ordinance Section A.4:
Item 4a: The development is consistent with City plans and with the stated
purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Development Ordinance. We
have endeavored to follow all guidelines and to incorporate all
expressed principles of the Performance Standards Options.
Item 4b: The existing and natural features of the land have' been considered
in the plan of the development and important features utilized for
open space and common areas. The existing and natural features of
the land have been considered. The lots have been oriented so as to
build upon the flatter sloped areas and leave the steep slopes and
drainage ways in their natural state. Existing trees over 6" in
diameter will be left, if at all possible, in locating the new
residences.
All street and residential construction will take place on lands
which do not exceed 40% slope. Therefore the requirements of
Section 18.62.080, Erosive and Slope Failure Lands, won't need to be
incorporated.
This property lies within an area designated as "Wildfire Lands".
Therefore appropriate procedures and requirements of Ordinance
Section 18.62.090 will be made a part of the deed restrictions.
Item 4c: The development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas
beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be
considered in the design of the development. The environment will
be maintained as woodsy and rural, enhancing the appearance of the
area, and maintaining the present atmosphere.
There is an apparent adverse effect created when the new street is
dedicated. The existing residence on the north at Granite Street is
closer to the right-of-way than the standard side setback of 10'-0".
It. presently is set back from that property line approximately 6'.
~~
~. ~,,~ tl:. " .,. ~
. 'C~:;'t~.'t~. '~.,. :t--, I.~",.~_ ;.~.T-",: -_:.J.~ ~;-,"~f.J'J.~i~3.. ,,,,.r'~ ~..:.,' ~.lJ,~~ ~,~.' ',i'
.: ';;'.'.:; .,' ......:r..:...:\.::.:. ,
Mr. John McLaughlin
Department of Planning and Development
February 2, 1990
Page 3
We feel that this condition is mitigated functionally as follows.
The right-of-way width proposed to meet the requirements of the
zoning ordinance is 41'. The right-of-way being furnished is 49',
because that is a strip of land which is available. The extra 4' on
each side'of a theoretical right-of-way ends up providing that
residence with an equivalent 10' side setback from the required
right-of-way line.
Item 4d: Adequate public facilities can be provided, including, but not
limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. Most public
facilities are in close proximity to this development. All are
available.
Potable water is available, but it has a lower pressure than
required. Therefore, a pumping station is planned to boost the
pressure appropriately.
Item 4e: The development of the land and provision of services will not
cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding
area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be
impeded. The availability of public facilities is such that their
use on this project will not detrimentally effect neighboring
properties nor existing developments. No neighboring property would
be hampered from the lack of public services available after their
being utilized on this development.
Item 4f: There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and
common areas. There are no specific open space or common areas in
this development. However, the layout of building envelopes tend to
create open space areas on most lots.
The forested area to the west is too steep for residential
construction and therefore constitutes a 'privacy buffer.
Item 4g: The total energy needs of the development have been considered and
are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is
made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical.
The houses are planned to incorporate "Good Cents" construction
details.
Solar setbacks have been provided, although the adjacent steep
forested slopes will hamper full solar utility on some lots.
61
. f, .!~I ~., .'~,*," I '~'~,.'." .';" ~
..;.....;....- ~I ~ ._ '4.J,.i;.:....:: .,_; .\;" ~;~;i"',~';.~:Jl.': ~l.~~it.l',; .t..~.~ ~
Mr. John McLaughlin
Department of Planning and Development
February 2, 1990
Page 4
Item 4h: All other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the
proposal. We personally know of no ordinance violation. In
fact, every effort was made to meet all published guidelines.
The grades into this site are such that we need to use the 18%
allowance for maximum street grade for a maximum of the allowed
200 lineal feet. Elsewhere street grades will be 15% or less.
This constitutes our "Findings of Fact" for Diane's Hill PUD, a
"performance standards" development.
Respectfully submitted,
MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES,
,// // /} _.}
(/ {d??{/.
Da~ Hofer, P. .
DWH/pc
cc: Gary and Diane Seitz
.l/?:~
€i.. PLANNING APPLICATIO:l TYPE: JT;'J 'f'2J 1'-(,
Date received ') //2 / '10_ File No. q 0 --- 051 Filing Fee 1-5-0,. D ~
Land Use: Zoning I I Comprehensive Plan designation
.********************************************************************************~
APPLICATION IS FOR
( ) Land Partition ( ) Subdivision # of units ( ) Zone Change
. ( ) Zone Variance (X) P.U.D. # of units 7 ( ) Compo Plan Chang(
( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Site Review ( ) Staff Permit
( ) Boundary Line Adjustment ( ) Annexation
Application pertains to of the Ashland Muncipal Code.
chapter, section, subpart
APPLICANT
Name
Address
Gary and Diane Seitz
1136 Ril Circle. Anchoraqe. Alaska 99504
Phone 1-907-333-4038
PROPERTY OWNER
Same
Phone
Name
Address
I have notified the mortgage holder, which is N/A
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER,ARCHITECT (if appropriate)
Name Dale W. Hofer, P.E., Marquess & Associates, Inc:
Address 1120 E. Jackson Street, Medford, Oregon 97504
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.. (attach legal description)
,
Street Address Granite Street across from upper park oarkinq lot
Assessor's Map No. __39 _ _!..~__ S8DD Tax Lot(s) 90L _ ~
Above described property was acquired by owner on June
month
Phone 503-772-7115
24 19Eh>
day year
List any covenants, conditions or restrictions', concerning use of property,
of improvements contemplated; as well as yard set-back and area or height
requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers.
Give date said restrictions expire.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Type your response to the appropriate zo:ning requirements on another sheet(s)
of paper and attach it to this form. Keep in mind that your responses must be
in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence
List the finding criteria and. then the evidence which supports it.
~i
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this
application, including the attached drawings and the required findings of
fact, are in all respects true and correct. I understand that all property
pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the
event that the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect,
the owner assumes full responsibility.
I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the
burden will be on me to establish: that I produced sufficient factual
evidence at the hearing to support this request; that the evidence adequately
justifies the granting of the request; that the findings of fact furnished
by me are adequate, and further that all structures or improvements are
properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most
likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any
structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at
my ~xpense. I~ I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professiona.
adv~ce ~nd ass~stance.
. Date
~~~
/
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood
the c~mplete application and its consequences to me as a property owner.
.z~o
Date/
NOTICE: Sec'tion 15.04.240 of the Ashland Muncipal Code prohibits the
occupancy of a building or a release of utilities prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion
of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to insure
:, completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of
utilities.
t .
. ..1 '.":i. ...;.,................:--
..(~~:~ " ':.'~'4';.kil(' . ~ \'~:'. L .'._ ',.~..:.:'.:::~ .~ :...'3;\'~\~]~i.~. r~' .: ~'.4' .:J!;'~'f~~:;
..... . f....'...
:'..'. '~"'~;..'.~... ;
, .' .~:";::~
I ~' ~
;- !l~"~~, ,
...~~.,. ':;'-':..~'::::'.:'~:~.,:i':':'k"" ,0" ~i' "~~\;~'~ >~
" :"
': . '~'.{:;~ ~./; ;.
~emnrandum
August 30, 1990
ijI 0:
Brian Almquist, City Administrator
JIf rOll!; ./ Steven Hall, Public Works Director
,i
~ubjed:
Proposed Sanitary Sewer LID -
Peachy Road/Paradise Lane
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council conduct public hearing and have first reading of
ordinance forming the LID.
BACKGROUND
See memo dated 8/27/90 from Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer.
City Council adopted a resolution setting 9/4/90 as a public
hearing for the LID.
SUMMARY
+ 92% of the lots participating are in favor of the sanitary
sewer LID.
+ Assessment method of equal cost per lot is agreeable to
participants .0
+ Staff recommends approval of the LID.
cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer
Dennis Barnts , Water Quality Superintendent
Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant
encl: Ordinance
Olson memo
, :-'i::iW,;;.1 ~~ ."~.;;. : ~.L' .....,:
-.:-.....dIW~....,j..~:.-... ",',;':'" ':. "';.~:L~~':: '4'~...;;;'w...:.......-L.. !'.!.:..J,.;;,:...:,:.:.~,.:,' ~ 11",..''yV,i',..'.lf', :..,,~'. . ':,"'~"k'_.',' ~.,;.;",_", .' ~,
.I,;...'. .~..:;.; .:..' ..~... ;~:...
;: ~J.1t:.tfJ:, i.. '.. " ~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF PEACHY ROAD
AND PARADISE LANE BY CONSTRUCTING SANITARY SEWERS AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE
BENEFITED AND PROVIDING THAT WARRANTS ISSUED FOR THE COST OF THE
IMPROVEMENT BE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND.
WHEREAS, The Council has declared by Resolution its intention to
construct the improvements described in substantial accordance with the
plans and specifications and to assess upon each lot or part of lot
adjacent to and benefited by the improvement its proportional share of
the cost of the improvement as provided by the Charter of the City of
Ashland; and
WHEREAS, notice of such int~ntion has been duly given and published as
provided by the Charter and a public hearing was held and it appears to
the Council that such improvements are of material benefit to the city
and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the
probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for ,the
costs;
THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. It is ordered that sanitary sewers be constructed on Peachy
Road and Paradise Lane in substantial conformance with the plans and
specifications adopted and on file in the office of the Director of
Public Works and that the cost be assessed upon each lot or portion of
lot adjacent to or benefited by such improvement as provided by the
Charter of the City of Ashland.
Section 2. Warrants for the construction of the improvement shall bear
interest at the prevailing rates and shall constitute general
obligations of the City of Ashland and the warrants shall be issued
pursuant to and on the terms and conditions in ORS 287.502 to 287.510
inclusive.
The foregoing ordinance was FIRST READ on the 4th day of September,
1990 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 1990.
Nan E. Franklin, city Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of september, 1990.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
c!'Iemnrandum
August 27, 1990
ijI 0:
JJf rom:
Steve Hall, Jill Turner, John MacLaughlin
James H. Olson. Assistant City Engineer~~
~ubjed:
Peachey Road - Paradise Lane Proposed Sewer Assessment
District
Early this spring the engineering sta~f began a series of
neighborhood meetings to discuss the possibility of providing
City Sewer Service to the newly annexed Peachey Road/Paradise
Lane area. On July 25, 1990 petitions were received from the
property owners requesting that a local improvement district be
formed to provide sewer service to the area. The petition also
requested the inclusion o~ a water main on Paradise Lane, however
since the water line was of such limited benefit (benefitting
on1 y 2 to 3 lots) it was thought 'best to eliminate the water 1 ine
from the request.
PETITION SUMMARY
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
No. of lots in district
No. of property owners involved
No~ of owners represented on petition
No. of lots represented on petition
Percentage in favor by lot
Percentage in favor by owner
13
8
7
12
92%
87.5%
.The only par~y that failed to respond to the petition was the
Catholic Church, even though they were contacted numerous times.
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
The property owners residing in the. proposed district have
requested that the assessment be made based upon potential
services which is a result of the lot area and the zoning. The
area north of Peachey Road is zoned R-1-10P allowing formation of
10,000 square foot lots, including lots 200, 300, 400, 500, 600
and 700, while the area south of Peachey Road is zoned RR.5P
allowing formation of 21,780 square foot lots and including lots
900. 902. 903, 1000. 1001. and 1100.
The estimated cost distribution prepared in my absence for the
resolution is in error in that more lots than .shown would be
eligible for service. A corrected copy of the estimated cost
distribution is attached.
~. ~,~ !, :'.. i _:,'. ,1'.':' ~. ,J'...
, T::I?lt;f'"
it';:l_ /..~JP'~~.~<
.. ..;\...~
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
As shown on the attached map sewer access would be from both
Harmony Lane and Garden Way. In both instances connection would
be made by removing the existing clean outs and installing
standard manholes. The Garden Way connection would extend to
Ross Lane where it would continue in, a westerly direction to
serve lots 500, 600 and 700.
The Harmony Lane section would cross Ross Lane and enter an
easement (to be acquired) over lots 300 and 400 to Peachey Road
to Paradise Lane and south on Paradise Lane. This section would
serve lots 200, 300, 400, 900, 901, 902, 903, 1000, 1001 and
1100.
Both lines in Harmony and Garden Way are 6 inch (installed in
1950 and 1967) however, the grade is adequate and the runs are
very straight, no problem is expected with this additional
connection. However, the downhill' flows should be monitored once
the system is in operation. There is no other viable option
since the line in Hillview is also 6-inch. All new mainline
construction in the district will be 8-inch.
REQUIRED PRELIMINARIES
Prior to bidding it will be necessary to acquire easements across
lots 300 and 400 from Mr. Orus McGee. He is aware of this and
has indicated he would be willing to grant the easement without,
charge.
It would also be advantageous to acquire dedications for
additional right of way on Ross Lane at the same time, however,
it is not necessary for the completion of the sewer assessment
district.
.;!\A!"',.~t!'. ......
s+u
\
.\
5~1
, j.
~ .
1
!. ~
l
i .
:. 0
---1-
- - kf-' -
,"
I
\.
I
!. . ..
; . ~
, i' ~ .. :
,. i I
i.1
; I
:.1
0::
tJJi
~i
;.!31
;~:
~:
.j
,
.;
'. : ~.' ~.,_. '." "" ,l"" :' ...',,:0: _~ ,: .._
~.~IIIi)..: .W' .-. '';~'......;.._~'. .......W :'_'.~ ~J'~.' '~"::...i...:i-~ .., .-'_ :- '...!.;.,....J" .:...:. \
, ,
3~ 1 F'
150 '
--
.
I.
oc
Q
.'
~ ' .
. i,
~-, 11(...
'" ;,.' f
~-IC I,j(~, ,!,'.,. r
. ' .~
:', " .::
" '
.,: . .."::
.. 2300
~
~ J'J'
.70 030
\~
\~
,l\
1)
2400 '
4.(.
lt~
'S90\)
(y- 1600 f1.'i-~
I -I
'"
,
~
.""\
"
/-
t . ' .-,
,; .J~ - .,- ...
... . ,""'"
,i '50<? _ 0,." -;-
..... . ,.' ......,.." ~
. ..., ...;,,- / " . \. ~.. ..!'\
... 'l"", ;.' I. I ,7-1.c...... , '
... ..a~ '- . ' . __ ~ '~~
. ....~ '- , .I ( ,. . '"
..... . ( .,
(P.92H)
- .,
- --.- - .,..".
PROPOSED PEACHEY RD. - PARADISE LN.
'SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
,I . \:.;.a:i:;:'.)..~~ ,...:
~
5~:1
6
!U I
.~ ' ?-
IIQ.,..
II" ,.,...
I~'" "".
Q
SCALE 1" = 200'
----r---
PROPOSED PEACHEY ROAD/PARADISE LANE
SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Map No. Tax Lot
Petition
Response
Owners
Name & Address
391E 15D 200
None
Archdiocease of Portland
2838 E. Burnside st.
Portland, OR 97214
391E 150 300,400,500
Yes
Orus McGee
393 Courtney St.
Ashland, OR 97520
391E 150 600
Yes
Charles C. Setchell
6632 Dark Hollow Rd.
Medford, OR 97501
391E 150 700
Yes
Tom Cox
450 Guthrie
Ashland, OR 97520
391E 150 900, 1100
Yes
David M. Barrett
1050 Paradise Lane
Ashland, OR 97520
391E 15D 901,902,903
Yes
Bruce Barrett
1000 Paradise Lane
Ashland, OR 97520
391E 15D 1000
Yes
'Ray Casebeer
1654 Peachey Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
391E 15D 1001
Yes
Jeanetta M. Nipper
1654 Peachey Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
;, .' . ','.' . .f; .: ~
: \." ",,' "
...;.t",,:~::.'.~'! .. ')~ ~ ",'" ..-'
';':.I';J,lI... .'~ 'k'--:....'..........-,;'.....';;...;...... " ;..~~.a......':""-I'4~.,;
. ~......J~:
,':'. ;"
. ",'-:0"
.. ,1\:
.- .l.fj',
.;' ,
Revised 8-27-90
PEACHEY/PARADISE LANE
SANITARY SEWER L.I.D.
Option #5
Estimated Cost Distribution
option #5
Each parcel assessed as to hook-up potential per tax lot, i.e. divide
the total square footage of each lot by the minimum lot square footage
for that parcel to determine total hook-ups available to that parcel.
(PLANNING STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF LOTS FOR EACH
PARCEL) .
Potential Cost *
Tax Lot No. Lot Area Lots Per Lot Total
39 1E 15D 200 = 39,813 S.F. = 3 $1,860.00 = $5,580.00 '
39 IE 15D 300 = 18,705 S.F. = 1 " = 1,860.00
39 IE 15D 400 = 21,780 S.F = 2 II = 3,720.00
39 IE 15D 500 = 40,450 S.F. = 4 " = 7,440.00
39 IE 15D 600 = 40,414 S.F. = 4 II = 7,440.00
39 IE 15D 700 = 79,965 S.F. = 6 II = 11,160.00
39 IE 15D 900 = 6,446 S.F. = 1 II = 1,860.00
39 1E 15D 901 = 26,850 S.F. = 1 II = 1,860.00
39 IE 15D 902 = 69,156 S.F. = 2 II = 3,720.00
39 IE 15D 903 = 23,336 S.F. = 1 II = 1,860.00
39 IE 15D 1000 = 29,511 S.F. = 1 II = 1,860.00
39 IE 15D 1001 = 9,600 S.F. = 1 II = 1,860.00
39 IE 15D 1100 = 167,575 S.F. = .2- II = 11,160.00
TOTAL 573,601 S.F. 33 LOTS $61,380.00
Total Estimated Cost $61,380.00
* Cost Per Lot = No. Potential Lots 33 = $1,860.00/Service
The costs shown' above are ESTIMATES ONLY. The final assessment will be
based upon actual 'construction costs.
~;m':,<,,-, ,., "
..,~"...-,' . ~'li~~~' ; ,'C :\~\t/.:L~:'.:.;i'i/~':~'''~<:'{i~1:.~~,::.:~~.(t:~,:..:)11)~:~-~-~
ll....
j"'.J.,
.~:\~.~~~.: '.;
\lOID
'.: -
c::::; ~ f!'.
Rfa)L~E.D
-
PEACHEY/PARADISE LANE
SANITARY SEWER L.I.D.
option #5
Estimated Cost Distribution
option #5.
Each parcel assessed as to hook-up potential per Tax Lot.
I.E. Divide the total square footage of each lot by the minimum lot square
footage for that parcel to determine total hook-ups available to that
parcel. (PLANNING STAFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE COUNCIL POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
LOTS FOR EACH PARCEL.)
Recent annexation density allows 3 lots per acre ( 43,.560 S.F. 3= 14,520
S.F.) below Peachey and 1.5 lots per acre (43,560 S.F. . 1.5 = 29,040 S.F.)
above Peachey.
Min. Lot Potential Cost *
Tax Lot Lot Area Size Lots Per Lot Total
391E15D 200 = 39,813 S.F. 14,520 S.F. = 2 $2,455.20 = $4;910.40
391E15D 300 = 18,705 S.F. . 14,520 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D 400 = 21,780 S.F. 14,520 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D 500 = 40,450 S.F. 14,520 S.F. = 2 2,455.20 = 4,910.40
391E15D 600 = 40,414 S.F. . 14,520 S.F. = 2 2,455.20 = 4,910.40
391E15D 700 = 79,965 S.F. 14,520 S.F. = 5 2,455.20 = 12,276.00
391E15D 900 = 6,446 S.F. 29,040 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D 901 = 26,850 S.F. 29,040 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D ' 902 = 69,156 S.F. 29,040 S.F. = 2 2,455.20 = 4,910.40
391E15D 903 = 23,336 S.F. 29,040 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D 1000 = 29,511 S.F. 29,040 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D 1001 = 9,600 S.F. 29,040 S.F. = 1 2,455.20 = 2,455.20
391E15D 1100 = 167.575 S.F. . 29,040 S.F. = -2 2,455.20 = 12.276.00
TOTAL
573,601 S.F.
25 LOTS
61,380.00
Total Estimated Cost
* - Cost Per Lot = No. Potential Lots
$61.380.00
25 =
$2,455.20/lot
The costs shown above are ESTIMATES ONLY. The final assessment will be
based upon actual construction costs.
t?
01
< ,r()
':.
"..;~;,;,;.:;.. '
_;,c,,~,
i.;;'lii..:::.~..:1: .
':d',:.:, :1;. ~<,
/
RESOLUTION NO. 90- ~
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY
.SEWERS ON PEACHEY ROAD AND PARADISE LANE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: '
SECTION 1. That it is the intention of the Council to cause sanitary
sewers to be constructed on Peachey Road and Paradise Lane. Such
improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated at'~55.~; per
service to each, benefited property, 100% of which will be)pald by Of
special assessments. ~~'j ((~
.....;~O /
SECTION 2. That the Council will meet in ,the Council Chambers, Ashland
civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street on the 4th day'of September, 1990 at
7:30 P.M., at which time and place the owners of said adjacent benefited
property are hereby called upon to appear before said Councilor to
submit written comments, and show. cause, if any, why sa.id improvement
should not be constructed, and why said property should not be assessed
for the construction thereof.
SECTION 3. That warrants for the interim financing of the afore-
mentioned improvement shall bear interest, at the prevailing rates, and
-'shall constitute general obligations on the City' of Ashland, and ~hall
be issued pursuant to and on the terms and conditions set forth in ORS
287.502 to 287.510 inclusive.
SECTION 4. The City Recorder is hereby directed ,to serve notice hereof
upon the property owners aforesaid by publishing a notice of public
hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than ten (10) days prior to
the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by' registered or
certified mail to the owners of each lot benefited by, the proposed
improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice
shall be in the form set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the 21st day of Auqust,
1990.
~L~ Jt ~#-~i~:'-
an E. I"Frankl in
city Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this -:?/1ZL~(J day of
v~,- ..."..~, IT- , 1990.
J
0' ·
.. t(,t-~{.,~~
Patricia J. Ack
Acting Mayor
~.:-f':::'W".fI.";'
;,4 . _....... .,;. . ",...' _-c "~.;;"'.:..~...'
;>, 't.t.',,: '.
Exhibit "A"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Ashland will
meet on the 4th day of September, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the
formation of a Local Improvement District as follows:
Nature of Improvement: Construction of sanitary sewers.
(:>f
~l
Benefited Property: All property on Peachey Road and Paradise Lane to
be served by the proposed im~rovements.
I $ CttC) , ,:I(j
Estimated Cost: $61.380 or $'2-,.4-5,5--;-20 per service. 100% 'of which is to
be paid bY special assessments~q~inst the benefited propertie~.
Additional Information: Preliminary project design information and
. detail~d estimates of project costs are available during business hours
'at the office of the Engineering Division, 27 1/2, N. Main Street (above
the French Country Restaurant on the Plaza). .
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all affected property owners are hereby
called upon to appear at the hearing, or to submit written comments
prior to or at the hearing, as to why the aforementioned improvements
should not be constructed, or why the benefited properties should not
be assessed for the construction thereof in the manner proposed herein.
By order of the city Council
O~iZ~t' ~~LL~
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
PUBLISH: Daily Tidings
August 2 4, 1990
,-
, '/lG,; ';} ~ .
" ' '" ~A.~l' 'I, ,;~. ' ;, ".,; -:;;'::,:,:":,,;;V":i;L.:;; \,;,( i_...~n.t:, '
;'l'.
. J; , .~"I~~.\~~;~t).'; .
FROM: Residents in the Peachy-Paradise Lane area
City)
TO: James)H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
Ashland City Council
SUBJECT: Forming a local improvement district for the installation
of City Sewer and Water to our properties.
We the undesigned property owners in the Peachy-Paradise Lane area
hereby request that the City of Ashland help us form a Local Improv-
ment District for the installation of City Sewer and Water to our
respective properties. Thank you.
Listed below are the various property owners, their Tax lot numbers,
and the option each has chosen from those presented to us by Mr.
Olson on May 22, 1990~ plus On~ additional option we added.
Property Owner----~-----~---Tax Lot(s)-----------------Option preferred.
200
Archdocese Of Portland
:/~fp300-400-500 //- crt- S-
600 7j!1jCJtJ ;L
7'J qb 700 /,
900-1100 l--~
-'1,
901-902-903 t-/-7J -
l) 1000 -:-,-
-
1001 Y tJc, :j-
We respectfully request that what ever option(s) are decided upon that
they be as fair and equitable as possible, keeping in mind that the
zoninq north of Peachy Road in Rl lOP and south of Peach Road is RR-.5P.
Df:l6/IJAL
~ 16 AlA I {j.e.....E 0 'F
~l/lir2LfzS
<SJ;7c. tI ~LL
FROM: Residents in the Peachy-Paradise Lane area
city)
TO: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
Ashland City Council
SUBJECT: Forming a local improvement district for the installation
of City Sewer and Water to our properties.
We the undesigned property owners in the Peachy-Paradise Lane area
hereby request that the City of Ashland help us form a Local Improv-
ment District for the installation of City Sewer and Water to our
respective properties. Thank you.
Listed below are the various property owners, their Tax lot numbers,
and the option each has chosen from those presented to us by Mr.
Olson on May 22, 1990, plus One additional option we added.
Property Owner--------------Tax Lot(s)-----------------Option preferred.
200
Archdocese Of Portland
co~~ '/?;7 ~e~_
Oaru.n McGee
:/~fp300-400-500
//- "'2- S-
600
901-902-903
I
l~G
~#-
If - -'5 -
7'3 If/) 700
900-1100
1000
:)-
-
1001
,L l>'"?, 6-
We respectfully request that what ever option(s) are decided upon that
they be as fair and equitable as possible, keeping in mind that the
zoning north of Peachy Road in Rl lOP and south of Peach Road is RR-.5P.
. ~ \
.,.t';)-s' . J'.
',~. L'-' ,L,,::; r:.::i...._
.', . "Ar')"a"'..,
. t . :,~ I. ,ii...~i.~" t~
'~.~.-:.... '\
29Hemnrandum .
May 22, 1990
'ill 0:
Participant In The Proposed Peachey/Paradise'
Sewer Assessment District
~ rom:
James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
~uhjed:
Possible Methods of Assessment
It is estimated that the proposed sanitary sewer improvements for
the Peachey Rd. - Paradise Lane area would cost approximately
$61,380. It is assumed that all necess'ary easements wi 11 be
provided at no cost to the assessment district. The estimated
cost reflects a proposed construction layout as shown on, the
accompanying plan dated 05-01-90. .
There are a ,number of methods by which the construction 'costs
could be distributed among the participating parties. The
following are just a few examples:
1. DISTRIBUTION BY TAX LOT
a) TIL no. of lots - 13 $61,380 + 13 lots~ $4,721.54 ea. lot
b) If lots 901 and 902 are deleted:
11 lots $61,38q+11 lots-$5,580.00 ea. lot
2. DISTRIBUTION BY Service CONNECTION
a) 19 connections $61,380+ 19 -
b) If lots 901 & 902 are deleted:
17 connections $61,380 + 17
$3,230.53/connection
$3,610.59/connection
3. DISTRIBUTION BY SERVICE CONNECTION WITH SIZE 'DIFFERENTIAL
(Assumes that a six-inch service is equal to two 4-inch
services)
a) 22 connections $61,380+ 22 - $2,790.00/connection
b) If lots 901 & 902 are deleted:
20 connections $61,380 t 20 - $3,069.00/connection
;!ai,;' :,;~ ::
UJa' '. ,.,' ;~'!',<'l'; i
Peachey/Paradaise Assessment
Page 2
May. 1990
4. DISTRIBUTION BY LOT AREA
LOT AREA
391E15D 200- 39.813 S.F.@
391E15D 300= 18.705 S.F.@
391E15D 400~ 21.780 S.F.@
391E15D 500= 40.450 S.F.@
391E15D 600= 40.414 S.F.@
391E15D 700= 79.965 S.F.@
391E15D 900= 6.446 S.F.@
391E15D 901= 26.850 S.F.@
391E15D 902= 69.156 S.F.@
391E15D 903= 23.336 S.F.@
391E15D 1000= 29.511 S.F.@
391E15D 1001= 9.600 S.F.@
391E15D 1100= 167,575 S.F.@
TOTAL
573.601 S.F.
. . .\~..~ / '.~ ;:~.nr:~~,1t
,t.!:'!,$:;
RATE
O.107/S.F.*
0.107/S.F.*
O.107/S.F.
O.107/S.F.*
O.107/S.F.*
0.107/S.F.*
O.107/S.F
0.107/S.F.
O.107/S.F.
0.107/S.F.
0.107/S.F.
0.107/S.F.
0.107/S.F.
TOTAL
$4,260.32
$2,001.59
$2,330.64
$4,328.48
$4,324.63
$8,556.91 .
$ 689 . 77,~
$2,873.17
$7.400.26
$2.497.14
$3,157.92
'$1,027.28
$ 17,931.90/
$ 61,380.00
* assumes property dedicated for street right of way - lot size
reduced accordingly.
If lots 901 and 902 are to be deleted from the assessment
district the above rate will increase by $0.02 per square foot to
$0.128 per square foot.
Other options or combinations may be available for a more
equitable assessment distribution. The final method of
assessment must be approved by the City Council, however there is
som~ flexibility in how the divisions are 'to be made.
The costs shown are estimates only. The final assessment will be
based upon actual construction ~osts.
Option #5.
Each parcel assessed as to hook-up potential per Tax Lot.
I.E. Divide the total square footage of each lot by the minimum
lot sqaure footage for that parcel to determine total hoolc-
ups available to that parcel. (PLANNING STAFF SHOULD BE "ABLE
TO GIVE COUNCIL POTENTIAL NUMBER OF LOTS FOR ~ACH PARCEL).
43,200 square feet divided by 10,000 sq. ft. or (below Peachy)
82,000 square feet divided by 21,780 sq. ft. (above Peachy
BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-120, A REQUEST FOR )
ANNEXATION, WITHDRAWAL FROM JACKSON CO. FIRE DIST. NO.5,)
ZONE CHANGE, SITE REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR) FINDINGS,
CONSTRUCTION OF A MINI-STORAGE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ON ) CONCLUSIONS
E. MAIN ST. AT OAK KNOLL DRIVE. ) AND ORDERS
APPLICANT: SECURE STORAGE )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 320 of Map 39 IE 15D is located on the North side of E.
Main Street near Oak Knoll Drive and is zoned Jackson County RR-5.
2) The applicants requested annexation, withdrawal from Jackson
County Fire District No.5, Zone Change to E-1 with Airport Overlay,
site Review, and Conditional Use Permit for construction of a mini-
storage facility with associated managers apartment.
3) The criteria for approval of an annexation are found in Chapter
18.108 and are as follows:
A. That the land is within the city's Urban Growth Boundary.
B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the
city's Comprehensive Plan.
c. That the land is currently contiguous with the present city
limits.
D. That public services are available or can be made available to the
site.
E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the city's
Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated.
4) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public
Hearing on August 21, 1990, at which time testimony was received and
exhibits were present.
5) A motion was made that the application be denied based on the
finding that the burden of proof has not been met for the Conditional
Use Permit or the Annexation and that other E-1 uses generating more
jobs would be more compatible. The motion failed on a 3:3 vote. A
motion was then passed by a vote of 5:1 to table the matter.
Now therefore, the City Council of the city of Ashland finds and
concludes as follows:
'~'~;~!t:~ .'
')':{'.~_':~iI~Fi~.\' ,
t. l' I, ~,<:,~!-~~~~,:~". ~- _',.
SECTION 1. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
The city council finds that, absent an affirmative vote to approve the
annexation, that the annexation request is deemed to be rejected.
SECTION 2. DECISION
Based on the lack of an affirmative vote to approve the annexation,
the city Council rejects Planning Action No. 90-120.
Dated this ___ day of September 1990.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
Nan E. Franklin
city Recorder
.,.,i!,U'...
a. .~ . ...: .~_ ....~... __ ...:..: ..;~....,...~. t
;: -,-~J-\:' ,~.-:;~ii,i~l:.t :;,.
ijI 0:
JIf rom:
~uhjed:
, .:. ~,..' ~~.........~_ d
:*'..~.;; ':
~'.::.-;..~i.:.'~: ." .~t'.;t~'..:~~;~~;:~~~','J
~emnrandum
August 31, 1990
Attached is an inventory of what we believe to be all the non-
conforming signs within the City. However, there may be a few more
that were overlooked during this "windshield" survey.
Included within this list are the Staff recommendations of signs we
believe, given the input from the City Council at the meeting where
this issued was discussed, meet the general criteria for inclusion on the
Historic Sign inventory.
These criteria are generally as follows:
1) The sign is a minimum of 40 years old and displayed in its
original location;
and one of the following:
2) The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship, or
design' of the period when it was constructed, uses historic sign
materials or means 'of illumination, and is not significantly altered
from its historic period. If the sign has been altered, it must be
restorable to its historic appearance.
3) , The sign is integrated into the architecture of the building
and is exemplary of a historically significant architectural style.
The criteria are subjective, and we believe that this recommended list
prepared by Staff should only be used as a guide in adoption of this
ordinance, and that the burden of proof for inclusion on the inventory
should be placed on the applicant requesting placement on the
Inventory of Historically Significant Signs. These recommended signs
should not be considered as the official Inventory of Historically
Significant Signs.
,Y.. '>~();~tl~';;t,:,I':';;~--. .'~L...~.
NON-CONFORMING SIGN INVENTORY
Sign Location
Non-Conformance
1) Supreme Motel North Main Street
Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, possible neon
2) Manor Motel North Main Street
Exposed illumination and
neon, above roof line,
projecting greater than 18"
3) Minute Market North Main Street
Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, plastic and
interior illuminated in
Historic District, possible
neon
4) Ashland 2nd Hand Wall Mural on Brother's
Not located on a buildina:
face With entrance/exit to
the public, in excess of
allowable area
5) Plaza Cafe Wall Mural on Odd Fellow's
Not located on a buildin&:
face with entrance/exit to
the public. in excess of
allowable area
6) Odd Fellow's North Main Street
Projecting beyond IS" from
building face, possible
neon
7) Greyhound Oak Street
Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District
8) Farmer's Insurance Pioneer St.
Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District
SIGNS RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION
. ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
1
,~
.-----
~~.ir." .r .:' ~. ~ .
; , ~ i:';;jtt ::-~:.:. ': ~ "_
; ~ . , ~,~:j.~t,:'~
9) Sentry Market Oak Street, (ground sign) Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, plastic and
interior illuminated in
Historic District, greater
than 20% sign area in
changeable copy
10) Sentry Market Oak Street, (wall sign) Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District
11) Oak Street Tank Oak and "A" Streets Projectine beyond 18" from
buildine face
12) Oak Street Tank Oak St. (wall sign) Not located on building
face with entrance/exit to
public, in excess of
allowable area
13) Peerless Rooms 4th and "B" Streets Not located on buildine
face with entrance/exit to
pu hUc. in excess of
allowable area
14) EuroMek "A" Street Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District, located above roof
line.
15) EXXON Pioneer and Lithia Way Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, plastic and
interior illuminated in
Historic District, more
than one ground sign on
lot
16) EXXON Oak and Lithia Way Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, plastic and
interior illuminated in
Historic District, more
than one ground sign on
lot
. SIGNS RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERV A liON
ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
2
. j.,~!t.". 0':'" '_"-~:'.~':M ~ - ':~'.:,':''::'.::.li,'-''.
i ...-',-;'",;..v."-., ....,-, "".,,"J
~.";'a.~......_..;.,,-_'..."";.....:.-. ,
i'}g~:i,l:\'.
,'u.t~..
17) First Interstate Bank Lithia Way Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District, more than one
ground sign on lot
18) First Interstate Bank East Main Street Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District, more than one
ground sign on lot
19) First Interstate Bank Drive-up windows Exposed illumination -
neon
20) Varsity Theatre East Main Street Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District, projectine beyond
18" on arterial, possible
neon
21) Harrison Auto Parts East Main Street Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District, projecting beyond
18" on arterial
, 22) Jackson County Fed East Main Street Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District
23) Hotel Columbia East Main Street Projectine beyond 18" on
arterial street in
downtown, plastic and
interior illuminated
24) Ashland Elks Lithia Way Exposed illumination, neon
25) Ashland Rexall East Main Street (wall sign) Area in excess of that
allowed
26) Ashland RexaU East Main (projecting) Projecting beyond 18" on
arterial street in downtown
SIGNS RECOMMENDED ,FOR PRESERVATION
ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
3
27) Astro' East MainjSiskiyoujLithia Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
28) Explorer Travel East Main Street Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District
29) Safeway Siskiyou Blvd (wall sign) Plastic and interior
illuminated in Historic
District, in excess of
allowable area
30) Palm Motel Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, neon
31) Ashland Motel Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5' ,
in height, in excess of
allowable area, neon
32) 7-Eleven Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
33) Omar's Siskiyou Blvd (ground sign) Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, neon '
34) Omar's Siskiyou Blvd (roof si2n) Located above roof line,
neon
35) Timber's Motel Ashland Street Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, neon, more than
one ground sign on lot
36) Timber's Motel Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, neon, more than
one ground sign on lot
37) Buy-Rite Siskiyou Blvd (ground sign) Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, neon, greater
than 20% in changeable
copy
38) Buy-Rite Siskiyou Blvd (wall sign) Area in excess of that
allowed
SIGNS RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION
, ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
4
.... ..~ "i..;.... L" . . ....~:;.-.J.
. ~:.;dt::a~ ,-;r. _~',,~,.~.'.
.~~~~~'...~::_tj.i:.::.J~/~:~~2~~" {)~~':,q3J.'~~1:; .
. \,- ~_.;~ ~
_ ._.: .lli,;..:'.. .~',..'.
. :~~~J ~l~t ~~:- ': ,
39) Rondo Lanes Siskiyou Blvd Area in excess of that
allowed, located above
roof line
40) Pines Trailer Park Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, possible neon
41) Ashland Shopping Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, more than one
ground sign on lot
42) Angelo's Pizza Siskiyou Blvd Not located on building
face with entrance/exit to
public, neon
43) Sprouse Reitz Ashland Shopping Center Wall sign in excess of
allowable area
44) Thrifty Ashland Shopping Center Wall sign in excess of
allowable area
45) Ashland Shopping Ashland Street Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, more than one
ground sign on lot
46) Minute Market Siskiyou Blvd Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, possible neon
47) SofSpray Car Wash Harmony /Siskiyou Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
48) EXXON Siskiyou /N ormal Groul)d sign in excess of 5'
in height
49) Goodwill Normal St. Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
50) Billboard Siskiyou/Bellview Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height, sign in excess of
allowable area
51) State of Oregon Tolman Creek Road Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
, SIGNS RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION
ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
5
_ :.._ _;:~_~t~.'J."':" ~{~ '~'f,.,~~:,l'~~~ll:.~t '-:.'.~'~:.1.i.i'~~~,.:,':~;l::t~I_,' :':'j;..t~i(:'.~.'.:~.~.>. .,':,~'~~0.~.~~~,~~:~:;~'~'i'i~:...-~~:'~:..~i.~j~~'-'~~'.;_' ~
52) Croman Corporation Tolman Creek/Mistletoe
53) Bi-Mart
Ashland Street
54) Copper Skillet
Ashland Street
55) Richard's Heating
Ashland Street
56) EXXON
Ashland Street
57) Oak Tree Restaurant Ashland Street
58) Knight's Inn Motel
Ashland Street/I-5
59) AM/PM Mini Market Ashland Street/I-5
60) AM/PM Mini Market Ashland Street/I-5
61) Union 76
Ashland Street/I-5
62) Union 76
Ashland Street/I-5
63) Shell
Ashland Street/I-5 (wall)
64) Shell
Ashland Street/I-5
. SIGNS RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION
ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
-~ M.. . _-'~L'~~~;' . ~', .' . '~'lZ t~,~L~ _.;'.'.~ ~z':.:..~~:,,_ i~~.~:C:2';~ill~;l:,~.... _ ~_ ~~ ~.,....
Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
Wall sign in excess of
allowable area
Wall sign not located on
building face with
entrance / exit to public
Sign located above roof
line
Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area,
neon
Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height '
Sign not located on
building face with
entrance/exit to public
Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
6
65) Shell Ashland Street/I-5 Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
66) Vista Motel Clover Lane/I-5 Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
67) Vista Motel Clover Lane/I-5 Sign located above roof
line
68) Chevron Ashland Street/I-5 Ground sign in excess of 5'
in height
69) Chevron Ashland Street/I-5 Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
70) Texaco Ashland Street/I-5 Freeway sign in excess of
allowable height and area
71) Texaco Ashland Street/I-5 Sign located above roof
line
72) MAPCO, Inc. Clover Lane Ground sign in excess of 5'
abo~e grade
73) Ashland Hills Inn Ashland Street/I-5 Freeway sign in, excess of
allowable height and area
74) Hall of Fame Ashland Street/I-5 Ground sign in excess of 5'
above grade
SIGNS RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION
, ON THE HISTORIC SIGN INVENTORY ARE IN
BOLD AND UNDERUNED LETTERING - AUGUST, 1990
7
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
September 4, 1990
PLANNING ACTION: 90-091
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.96
Sign Regulations
REQUEST: Modifications of the Sign Code, creating a new section regarding Historic
Signs.
I. Relevant Facts
Since the last Council meeting, a survey of non-conforming signs has been
completed and recommendations concerning the Historic Signs have been
submitted.
Attached is a revised ordinance outlining the process in establishing an Inventory
of Historically Significant Signs.
Additions to the ordinance 'are in BOLD type and deletions are a STRIKEOUT
type.
,;'.;,.~, ';',
18.96.160
Historic Signs
A.
Historic Sign Inventory The inventory of historically significant signs may
be established by resolution of the City Council.
B.
Criteria for designation of Historic Signs
All signs for which designation as a Historic Sign are requested shall be
substantially in existence at the time of application, a minimum of 40 years
old, displayed in its original location and meet one of the following
criteria:
1. The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the
period when it was constructed, uses historic sign materials or
means of illumination, and is not significantly altered from its
historic period. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable
to its historic function and appearance.
2. The sign is integrated into the architecture of the building and is
exemplary of a historically significant architectural style.
J. The sign is in association with an ilnpoltant e~ent, pelson, 01
business in the histOIY of the City of Ashland.
C. The owner of any sign may request that said sign be reviewed for
significance in the Historic Sign Inventory upon written application to the
City Council. Application fees shall be the same as for Type I
applications. Applications shall include written findings addressing the
criteria for designation of historic signs, and current and historic
photographs of the sign, if available.
1. The Council shall refer all requests for inclusion on the Historic
Sign Inventory to the Historic Commission for review and
recommendatjon in relation to the criteria. The Commission shall
make a recommendation to the Council within 30 days of the
request. Notice of the Historic Commission Meeting shall be
mailed to all affected property owners within 100' of the subject
property. If a recommendation is not made within 30 days the
request shall be forwarded to the Council without a
recommendation.
2. The Council shall, after receiving the recommendation of the
Historic Commission or after 30 days, provide notice to all affected
Staff Draft - Historic Sign Code
August 31, 1990
Page 2
~. .~. .-l)'.
property owners within 100' of the subject property of a public
hearing before the City Council.
3. The Council shall decide, based on the criteria above and the
recommendation of the Historic Commission, whether to approve
the request to include the sign on the inventory.
4. Inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory shall be by resolution of
the Council.
D. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory in any zoning district shall be exempt
from the requirements of this Section except Sections 18.96.110 and
18.96.120 C. Also, that the sign area of the historic sign is exempted from
the total allowable sign area, as defined in this section, except as modified
by Council conditions in E. below.
E. The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions regulating
area, maintenance, etc.. on the signs included in the Historic Sign
Inventory to further the purpose and intent of this ordinance.
F. Removal, or demolition of a Historic Sign shall be done under permit and
approval of the Staff Advisor. The Historic Commission shall review the
permit at their next regularly scheduled meeting and shall have the
authority to delay issuance for 30 days from the date of their review
meeting. Such delay shall be to allow the Commission the opportunity to
discuss alternate plans for the sign with the applicant.
G. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory, which have been destroyed or
damaged by fire or other calamity, by act of God or by public enemy to an
extent greater than 50%, may be reconstructed in an historically accurate
manner. Such reconstruction shall be authorized by the City Council, only
after determination that the reconstruction will be an accurate duplication
of the historic sign, based on review of photographic or other documentary
evidence specifying the historic design. The Historic Commission shall
review and make recommendations to the City Council on all such
reconstructions.
H. Maintenance and Modification of Historic Signs
1. All parts of the historic sign, including but not limited to neon
tubes, incandescent lights and shields, and sign faces, shall be
maintained in a functioning condition as historically intended for
the sign. Replacement of original visible components with
substitutes to retain the original appearance shall be permitted
Staff Draft - Historic Sign Code
August 31, 1990
Page 3
" .:
provided such replacements accurately reproduce the size, shape,
color and finish of the original. Failure to maintain the sign in
accord with this section shall be grounds for review of the historic
sign designation by the City Council.
2. Modifications of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the
Historic Commission and approval by the City Council, only if such
modifications do not substantially change the historic style, scale,
height, type of material or dimensions of the historic sign, and does
not result in a sign which does not meet the criteria for designation
as a historic sign.
3. Changes in the location of a historic sign may be allowed, after
review by the Historic Commission and approval by the City
Council, only if such locational change does not result in the sign no
longer meeting the criteria for designation as a historic sign.
Staff Draft - Historic Sign Code
August 31, 1990
Page 4
~tmorandum
August 29, 1990
mo:
Mayor & city council
JJf rom:
~'~bjett:
Greg williams, city councilor
council Liaison Assignments
since I have served on the Council over three years, we have not
changed our liaison assignments, other than ad hoc committees. I
feel that it would be beneficial if we would do that, and since
this is an election year, I suggest that now is an appropriate time
to do so. What I would like us to I do is to rotate these
assignments every two years. This would help us to better
understand other committees, and perhaps give the committees new
perceptions.
After the November elections, but before January first, have all
members of the newly elected Council submit a list of committees
they would like to serve on, with their top requests in order. The
Administrator could rank them for us, with mayoral approval. I
further propose that the list could contain not more than one of
the Councilors current committees. The new. assignments would
become effective January 1st.
I feel that this method would commit Council members to a two-year
commitment, but would better circulate the assignments. It would
also eliminate the situation in which one Councilor has only one
or two assignments and another has three or four.
,t;:-~1=.l'
. '~:~~"~,:~l~:'./.,~ .
,\.i~~:~\,:,L~": ~ ..~~i:~,lL;:'~;:,...{~~~'~i::~'_.~.~;~ :'~~:~:.~-l~"~:_'\
,~'..l .~
, ~ ..~.../' . " ....! ' :
,~' ',',' ~~. -I.',' '~;:i"~:', 't,_~','.:
:~, ,'....
August 30, 1990
Mayor & city council
city of Ashland
Re: Ad hoc Transportation committee
Please accept our unanimous endorsement of the efforts by the
tourist transit committee in their petition for regional
development funding for the double-decker bus proposal, to be
recommended by the Jackson County commissioners on September 7th.
The motion was made at our August 28th meeting by Michael Donovan
and seconded by Edwin Chapman, after a presentation by Carl
Oates.
We would be happy to make a public presentation at the Sept. 4th
council meeting.
Carole Wheeldo~
Chair
Transportation committee
, .-'1 .
~emornttdum
August 30, 1990
~o: Brian Almquist, City Administrator
JJf rom: Steven Hall, Public Works Director
~uhjed;
Traffic Safety Commission Recommendation -
Downtown Parking District
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council approve attached Ordinance deleting Chapter
11.28.010 and amending Chapter 11.28.050 of the Ashland Municipal
Code.
BACKGROUND
The Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) has received numerous
requests for special parking zones over the last several years,
particularly in the Downtown Parking District.
After a review of many requests, the TSC felt it would be wise to
review the entire Downtown Parking District as it exists and then
review that in a public forum.
The Engineering Division prepared an "as built" drawing of
existing parking in the Downtown Parking Zone.
TSC meetings were publicized in the local papers and
participation was not on the "packed house" side, but spirited
debate evolved during the discussion of options.
After the discussions, the TSC came to the following conclusions:
+ The existing 2 hour parking (8:30am to 5:30pm except
Sundays and holidays) works the best for the needs of
downtown Ashland.
+ Loading zones were generally located for specific
businesses and not necessarily ease of use by trucks and
delivery vans.
+ There was need for 15 minute zones, generally one per
block to assist the "drop in" customers.
" ",;i'i~;:-:tY.~' .
Downtown Parking Recommendations - TSC
August 30, 1990
Page Two
+ The commercial bus parking for Shakespeare buses on
pioneer was causing a hazard with the vehicle parking,
street width and sight distances at the corner of East Main
Street and pioneer adjacent to the Black Swan Theater.
+ There was a need for additional handicap parking in the
downtown area.
+ There are some specialty parking zones which are not used
because of a change of business.
+ There are some parking zones which do not match city
ordinances.
+ There are some parking zones for which I can find no
record of how they were established.
After a thorough review, the TSC wishes to make the following
recommendations. The overall changes to the Downtown Parking
District are minimal in the proposal. The specific changes
include:
+ add eleven and delete one 15 minute zone
+ add four handicap zones
+ change all four-hour zones to two-hour zones
+ remove two commercial bus zones on Pioneer
between East Main and Hargadine
+ transfer four parking stalls on pioneer south of
East Main from west side to east side
+ add one commercial bus zone on Lithia Way adjacent to
the new Pioneer Parking Lot (Hours noon to midnight
2/28 to 11/1)
+ add one commercial bus zone adjacent to
149 and 151 pioneer Street (Hours 5:30pm to midnight
2/28 to 11/1)
+ move several existing loading zones so that at least one
end abuts an open or non-parking area for easier access
+ add one loading zone on northeast corner of First and
Hargadine
+ remove two loading zones, northeast corner pioneer and
Hargadine, southwest corner East Main and First next to
Mark Antony Hotel
Downtown Parking Recommendations - TSc
August 30, 1990
Page Three
On May 24, 1990 the TSC held a special meeting which was
publicized in the local newspapers to finalize the
recommendations. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are
attached for your reference.
A staff recommendation is to change the limits to a "Traffic
Regulation" as attached to this memo. Chapter 11.12.020 of the
Municipal Code allows the City Administrator to approve parking
and traffic control. After discussing the issue with Brian
Almquist, and with his approval, I am recommending that the City
Council approve the Ordinance. The City Administrator can then
sign the attached "Traffic Regulation". This will allow
administrative traffic and parking control decisions to made with'
the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission when
required.
SUMMARY
+ TSc recommends changes to downtown parking as per attached
Traffic Regulation
+ Staff recommends approval of Ordinance removing p~rking
regulations from the Municipal Code.
cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer
John Fregonese, Planning Director
Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant
encl: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Traffic Regulation
AMc 11.12.010
Staff memo 5/22/90
TSC minutes 5/24/90
.~.~..::; 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.28 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE CONCERNING PARKING LIMITS AND PARKING ZONES IN THE
DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. section 11.28.010 is hereby deleted and is to be
replaced'by a Traffic Regulation in substantial conformance with
Exhibit A attached to thi$ ordinance.
SECTION 2. section 11.28.050 is amended by striking the words
"Section 11.28.010 and".
The foregoing ordinance was first read on the 4th day of
september, 1990 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of
september, 1990.
Nan E. Franklin
city Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of september, 1990.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
I --
.:~~.'~ ~...
" '...-It .- ,...._ .~,.,l.....~
"~.~iJ,';: .;" ....:.:.:._,.\;.. :.--,~.:,,~I'_.."".~;._~ ~r.,_'~~~":J'.....:~..~'
CITY OF ASHLAND
TRAFFIC REGULATION
DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT
Approved September
-'
1990
Last Revision:
,1990
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 11.12.020 vests power in the city
Administrator to'establish parking zones and traffic control
signs on city streets. The decision must be made on "Traffic
engineering principles and traffic investigations.1I
The Traffic Safety commission approved the proposal at the
regular meeting of May 24, 1990.
The city Administrator has determined that restricted parking in
the Downtown parking District as defined in the Ashland Municipal
Code, Chapter 11.30 shall be:
A) limited to 2 hours from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except
sunday and holidays except as noted in this Traffic
Regulation.
+ Lithia Way from East Main street to Helman street
+ North Main street from Helman street to Water street
+ East Main street from Water street to siskiyou Blvd.
+ Second Street from Lithia Way to alley south of East
Main street
+ east side of First street from Lithia Way to alley
south of East Main street.
+ pioneer street from Lithia Way to East Main street
+ Oak street from Lithia Way to East Main street
+ Water street from Lithia Way to East Main street
+ Gresham street from East Main street to Hargadine
street
+ east side of Third street between Lithia Way and East
Main street
+ east side of pioneer between East Main street and
Hargadine street except special limitations for
commercial buses and 15 minute zones listed below
Downtown Parking
Page 2
B) limited to 1 hour from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except Sunday
and holidays.
+ all parking stalls on East and North Main streets
surrounding the Plaza except:
* handicap stalls noted below
* "authorized parking only" stalls as noted below
* loading zones as noted below
* 30 minute stalls as noted below
+ west side of Third street between Lithia Way and East
Main street except 15 minute zone noted below
C), limi ted to 30 minutes from 8: 30 am to 5: 30 pm except
Sunday and holidays.
+ five stalls located adjacent to the northerly and
easterly side of the Plaza
+ east side of Oak street from Lithia Way north to the
north property line of 170 Oak street
+ west side of North pioneer street adjacent to 149 and
151 pioneer street.
D) limited to 15 minutes from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except
sunday and holidays.
+ fifth stall east of Water street on the north side of
East Main street
+ first stall east and west of pioneer street on north
side of East Main street
+ first, stall west of pioneer street on south side of
East Main street
+ fourth stall west of First street on north side of
East Main street
+ second stall west of First street on south side of
East Main street
+ fifth stall west of Second street on the north side
of East Main street
+ third stall west of Second Street on the south side
of East Main Street
+ first stall south of Lithia Way on west side of Third
street
+ first two stalls south of Lithia Way on west side of
Oak street
.~:::'..r -,' :'
h. . .~':a: "..,
. ~",,~": ~ ~ ' ;
Downtown Parking
Page 3
+ the stall on the northeast corner diagonal of pioneer
street and Hargadine street and the first stall north
of the diagonal stall on the east side of pioneer
street
+ the first stall east of Calle Guanajuato on the north
side of Winburn Way
+ first two stalls south of Lithia Way on west side of
Oak street
E) limited to 15 minutes from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except
sunday and holidays for Chamber of Commerce only
+ first stall east of pioneer street on south side of
East Main street in front of Chamber of Commerce
F) limited to 5 minutes from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday
through Friday.
+ first two stalls on East Main street on north side of
city Hall
+ first three stalls east of First street on north side
of Lithia Way adjacent to u.s. Post Office
G) handicap parking.
+ first stall on North Main street on north side of
south crosswalk to Plaza
+ first stall on East Main street on the south side of
the crosswalk to Plaza
+ first stall on the northeast corner of Oak street and
East Main street on pioneer street
+ first stall on the northeast corner of pioneer street
and East Main street on pioneer street
+ first stall on the southeast corner of First street
and East Main street on First street
+ first stall on the northwest corner of Second street
and East Main street on Second Street
+ four stalls designated in the Hargadine Parking Lot
+ two stalls designated in the Pioneer/Lithia Way
Parking Lot
+ one stall designated in the west side Water street
Parking Lot
H) loading zone, 15 minute limit 6:00 am to 5:30 pm except
Sundays and holidays.
+ 6th stall west of pioneer street on the south side of
East Main street
+ 3rd stall west of First street on the south side of
East Main Street
;,,:,:..:.:te,' :..:.. ~...';.~_.;.... ':;.~' to. .....:_:.......:~. - _. l.. _:.I_"_!:U"._~:';.
;~L~:.,J: :.
Downtown Parking
Page 4
+ 1st stall east of First street on the south side of
East Main street
+ 1st stall west of Third street on the north side of
East Main street
+ east side of North Main street from East Main street
to Winburn Way
I) loading zone, 15 minute 9:00 am to 9:00 pm.
+ 1st stall north of Hargadine street on east side of
First street
J) Authorized Vehioles only
+ from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm, from Winburn. Way north on
east side of East Main street adjacent to city Hall, 5
stalls
+ from 8:30 am ,to 11:00 pm, first stall north of
crosswalk adjacent to Plaza on East Main street
K>. oommeroial bus parking (Oregon Shakespeare Festival)
February 28 through November 1 annually.
+ the third and fourth stalls on the east side of
pioneer street south of East Main street
+ from noon to midnight, the first two stalls east of
pioneer street on the north side of Lithia Way
+ from 5:30 pm to midnight, the 30 minute parking zone
adjacent to 149 and 151 pioneer street
L) pub1io transit bus stops
+ first area east of Gresham street on south side of
East Main street in front of Public Library
+ first area west of Second Street on north side of
Lithia Way
+ south side of North Main street between Granite and
Plaza ,
+ north side of Lithia Way east of Water street bridge.
+ south side of East Main street immediately west of
First street
M) oommeroial bus parking
+ in front of bus depot, 91 Oak Street
--------. "" --
Downtown Parking
Page 5 '
N) no parking zone
+ Water street from Lithia Way north to end of the
Downtown Parking District
+ Lithia Way from east side of Water street Bridge west
to end of the Downtown Parking District
+ North Main street from Church street west to end of
Parking District
+ south side of North Main street and East Main street
between Water street and Oak street
+ west side of pioneer street between East Main street
and Hargadine street
+ west side of First street between Lithia Way and East
Main street
+ north side of Hargadine street between pioneer street
and First street
+ southeasterly side of Hargadine street from Second
street to Gresham street
+ north and south side of East Main street between
Third street and Siskiyou Blvd
+ all other areas marked by yellow curbs (Ashland
Municipal Code Chapter 11.24.020.F)
+ first three stalls in front of the Varsity Theater,
166 East Main street
The Public Works Director is directed to install the necessary
signs and/or street markings as required as soon as feasible.
The violation of this Traffic Regulation shall be an infraction
and shall be subject to the penalty in Chapter 1.08.020 of the
Ashland Municipal Code.
All requirements of Chapters 11.24, 11.28 and 11.30 of the
Ashland Municipal Code apply to this Traffic Regulation.
Approved
,1990 by:
Brian Almquist, city Administrator
cc: Public Works Director
Police Chief
Assistant City Engineer
street Superintendent
Traffic Safety Commission
------.-~--
r:
!.,;Z.;...
>~:.jrr~!'
18:~<',
~>"('.'~' .:
v 0 hie 1 ( ; S ~ n d .r r i.l [ fie
11. J,2. 010--11.l2. 020
~hapter ll.12
TRAFFIC CONTl~OL *
Sect.ions:
11.l2.0l0
ll.l2.020
11.12.030
11.l2.040
11.l2.050
Powers of city council.
Adoption of traffic regulations.
Existing signs and signals.
l"\uthority of police and fir.e officers.
Te~porary blocking or closing of streets.
11.12.:.010 Pu\"eFs 0:: city cO\.ll:.cil. .'1\. After approval
by trle St.at.e Hi.ghway Commission \-lhere such approval is re-
qt1ired by the motor vehicle lav!s of Oregon and for the best
use of the streets in the public interest, the council may
designa~~ by resolution the following traffic controls which
shall besorne eff~ctive upon installation of appropriate traf-
fic signs, signals, markings, or other devices:
1. Through streets;
2. One-way streets;
3. Truck routes;
4. Streets where trucks, machinery, or other large
or heavy vehicles exceeding specified weights shall be pro-
hibited. Such vehicles may, ho'vever, be opera ted on such
streets for t.he purpose of delivering or picking up materials
or merchandise, but t:1en oi11y by entering such streets at
the interesection nearest the destination of the vehicle and
leaving by the shortes~ route.
B. Except when contrary to state law, if it appear.s
that the public safet.y or vlelfare does not require the in~'
stallation or maintenance of a traffic sign, signal, mar.king,
or other device or will be better served by the removal or
alteration thereof, the council by r.esolut.ion may forbid the
installation or order the removal or alteration of any traf-
fic sign, signal, marking, or other device that is proposed
or inst.alled u~der Section ll.l2.020. Such traffic controls
shall become inoperative or modified only when removed or
altered. (Ord. l557 ~3, 1968).
ll.12.020 Adoption of traffic regulations. A. In mak-
ing the best u~e of streets and sidewalks for vehicle traffic
find parking and p€destria~ traffic, the city administrator
is authorized to provide appropriate- ana reasonable regulation
----
~.
For statuLc)):y r;rovisions regarding t'he authority of
local officials to regulate traffic, see ORS 483.042
and 4 8 3 . O:i 3 .
189
~ '~>~,
" ',:i 2.':.
Vehicles and Traffic
11.12.020
of the classes of traffic signs, signals, markings, and other
devices described in subsection B of this section for the streets,
sidewalks, and other public property of the City as are appropri-
ate for the public safety, convenience and welfare. Subject to
approval by the State Highway Commission w'here such approval is
required by the motor vehicle laws of Oregon, the City Adminis-
trator shall base his determinations only upon:
1. Traffic engineering principles and traffic investi-
gations;
2. Standards, limitations, and rules promulgated by
the State Highway Commission; and
3. Other recognized traffic control standards.
B. Pursuant to subsection A of this section, the City
Administrator may establish, maintain, remove, or alter the fol-
lowing classes of traffic controls:
1. Street areas and City-owned or leased land upon
which parking may be entirely prohibited or prohibited during
certain hours, and the angle of such parking;
2. The location and time of operation of traffic con-
trol signals;
3. Bus stops, bus stands, taxicab stands, any other
passenger common carrier vehicle stands;
4. The location of passenger loading zones for use in
connection with a hotel, auditorium, theater, church, school, or
public building;
5. Loading zones for commercial purposes;
6. Intersections or areas where drivers of vehicles
shall not make right, left, or u-turns, and the time when the
prohibition applies;
7. Crosswalks, safety zones, parking spaces, traffic
lanes, and other symbols;
8. Traffic control signs: and
9. All other signs, signals, markings, and devices re-
quired to implement traffic and parking controls enacted by the
Councilor required by State law or regulation.
, C. Pursuant to subsection A of this,Section, the City
Administrator may provide for temporary, experimental, or "emer-
gency traffic regulation that shall' not remain in effect for
more than thirty (30) days. No temporary, experimental or emer-
gency regulation is effective until adequate traffic signs, sig-
nals, markings, or other devices are erected, clearly indicating
the regulation. (Ord. 2361, 1985)
D. The City Administrator shall not remove or alter a traf-
fic sign, signal, marking, or other device if his act would be
contrary to State law or ordinance. If a traffic sign, signal,
marking, or other device is installed under authority of a reso-
lution of the Council, the Council shall first approve, by reso-
lution, any change or alteration by the City Administrator.
(Ord. 1557 s4, 1968)
190
Revised Nov. 1985
T -
".ath' .:
~ '''~
'::ilf:;....~1 "
, .'t,,:." ..,:.... ...;:.~~....~~..~'-'.__-..:!i.
l~.i.l;~
2ffil em 0 r n ttdum
May 22, 1990
~o: Traffic Safety'commission
J1f rom:. Steven Hall, public Works Director
~uhject;" ". Downtown Parking -- Proposed Revisions
ACTION REQUESTED
Review staff proposal and direct staff to draft an ordinance to amend
Chapter 1l.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code relating to the Downtown-
Parking District (Chapter 11.30).
Note: Ordinance will be returned to the Traffic Safety Commission for
final approval and recommendation to the City Council at a June
meeting (I hopell??).
BACKGROUND
The Traffic Safety Commission has received several requests for
"special" parking zones in the downtown area. ,Direction was given to
staff to inventory the downtown parking and return to the TSC for
discussion of potential alternatives.
The study area is limited to the "Downtown Parking District" as
specified in Chapter 11.30 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
At the March 19~0 TSc staff presented a map of existing parking in the
downtown area and.requests from the Handicap Access Subcommittee. The.
meeting was publicized by the Ashland Daily Tidings in the community
calendar. Minutes of that meeting are attached. A brief summary of
the directions of TSC from that meeting include the following:
+ Handicap Access Subcommittee requested handicap parking at:
* Both sides of SW crosswalk on Plaza (1 exists)
* NE corner of Oak and E. Main on-Oak
* NE corner of Pioneer and E. Main on ~ioneer
* SE corner of pioneer and E. Main on E Main
* Two at SE corner of First and E. Main on First (1 exists')
* NW corner of Second and E. Main on Second
.+ Remove OSF bus parking on N. Pioneer during daylight
performances. Each commissioner to review prior to May
meeting. Letter is coming from OSF on the issue.
DOYNTOYN PARKING
May 22, 1990
Page 2
+ varsity Theater request to put three no parking zones in front
6f theater (2 exist)
+ Retain same amount of loading zones on E Main. Try locating
so that they would be more useable (1 per block) ·
+ Place 2 short term zones in each block (one on each side) on
E '. "~ain.
+ Request of Primavera Restaurant (in Cabaret Theatre) approved
at April TSC for one 10ading zone on First street near
entrance.
-
I have walked the downtown area several times and come to the
conclusion that not many changes can be made to improve the parking.
All existing loading zones should be located adjacent to a no parking
area or intersection to provide easier access for delivery vans.
I have attempted to "scatter" 15 minute zones at one per block on E.
Main and on Oak. I also investigated the potential need for 15-minute
parking zones on Pioneer, First, Second and Third between E. Main and
Lithia Way.
Particular attention was given to Benjamin Franklin savings and Loan
which has no off-street pa~king and has requested 15-minute parking .
zones. They are the only bank in the downtown area without off-street
parking.
I have no re.commendations for the Plaza area other than the additional
handicap zone at the southerly crosswalk and a request from the city
J~nitor. with proposed revisions to the Plaza in ,the Downtown Plan,
that issue should be reviewed when final plans are available.
At 'the Barrier Awareness Day, '! spoke with Larry Hyland and he noted
that the proposed handicap stall adjacent to the alley behind City .
Hall was not practical. That is not proposed as a handicap zone by
staff.
I also question the useability of two handicap stalls on First above
E. Main. One exists and I assume it is difficult to use because of
~~he steep grade of First. To provide two stalls as requested, one
regular stall would hav~ to be eliminated and a ramp cut into the curb
to allow wheelchair access to the sidewalk. with the grade of First, .
this seems rather unworkable although Larry Highland might have some
comments. .
DOYNTO\lN PARKI tm
May 22, 1990
Page 3
.I ,:. ." ~' ~
The ,existing stall that was requested as a handicap stall in front of
the Chamber' of Commerce has been eliminated due to planter
construction. with the proposed stall directly across E. Main, I do-
not recommend a handicap stall.
There is also a handicap ramp at the west side of the Water street
parking loot with a ramp across the curb to the newly paved area under
the Water street bridge.
The bus parking on N. pioneer for OSF poses several problems with no
easy solutions. N. pioneer is 32 feet wide, curb to curb. with
parking on both'sides near E. Main, there is only 16 to 17 feet
available for 2' lanes of 'traffic. A traffic lane in this situation
should be at least 10 to 11 feet wide. There are three options.
Eliminate the 4 parking spaces on the west side, remove the bus
parking across the street from the west side parking or eliminate all
bus parking. The Commission is considering removing all bus parking
during daylight performances and representatives of the OSF will be
presen~ to give their point of view.
RECOMMENDATION/SUMMARY
staff has several recommendations.
+
+
First next to ,the Mark Antony Hotel.
so that there is no parking on at least
access for delivery vans as per
Remove,loading zone on
Move all loading zones
one side to allow easy
attached drawings.
Provide at least one 15-minute zone per block 'as per attached
drawings. Special attention was given to the corner of:E.
Main and Pioneer, because of the request of Ben Franklin
savings and Loan and their lack of parking facilities.
Add one two-hour parking stall on Lithia Way between Oak and
pioneer between the two bank driveways.
, possible addition of one two-hour parking stall on E. Main' at
Western Bank on,the corner of First and E. Main.
Change one of the two 15 minute zones to 2 hours in front-of
the Mark Antony Hotel.
One additional no parking zone in front of the V~rsity
Theater. Total will, now be three.
Change one hour parking to two hour parking on:
* North side of Lithia Way between Oak and Pioneer.
* South side of Lithia Way just west of First.
+,change "Authorized Vehicle Only" stal1 on, easterly side of Plaza
time'limit from 8 AM to 5 PM to 8 AM to 7 PM for use by the city
janitor.
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
DOYNTOYN PARKING
May 22, 1990
Page 4
+ Provide loading zone on SE corner of Hargadine and 'First,
(first diagonal stall on First) for Primavera Restaurant and
Cabaret Theater. Time limits 5 PM to 9 ~M daily.
+ Rearrange handicap stalls in Hargadine Parking lot to provide
standard handicap access. Sketch is attached.
....
....( .. "
cc: Jim Olson, Assistant city Engineer
Jerry GloSSOp, street superintendent
encl:
AMC 11.28 & 11.30
March Minutes
Maps (3)
Hargadine Parking
-
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1990
.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Phil Arnold
in the Council Chambers. Commissioners in attendance were Walt
Schraub, steve Armitage~ Jim sims and Ken Davenport. Also present
were steve Hall and Secretary Barbran Jones, CPT Daymon Barnard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the April 26th, 1990 meeting were approved'as written.
PARKING STUDY
Phil referenced Hall's memo reviewing the entire staff recommendation
and asked the Commissioners and the audience) to only bring up the items
that they had concerns with. They were:
5.
Shakespeare buses on pioneer ,(Paul Nicholson).
Substandard parking in front'of Mark Antony (Sims).
possible added parking space across from Greyhound bus terminal
(Sims) .
Add another loading space in front of Varsity Theatre (John
Schweiger).
Entrance to Shakespeare Parking Lot on Hargadine -- Vision
Clearance problem (Nicholson).
Businesses on Oak ,street between B & C (Letter to Staff) .
First parking space on pioneer across from bus parking.
1.
2.
3.
4 .
6 ~,
, 7.
Varsity Reauest - Phil asked the Commission if the extra space should
be granted in front of the Varsity Theatre and. they unanimously agreed that
it should.
Shakespeare Buses - Hall noted that the width of pioneer is 32' curb
to curb. standard lane width is at least 10' and when buses and cars were
parked ~p the street, it left only 8'. Armitage asked Paul how many buses'
were we talking about and he responded about five. They talked about the
possibility of eliminating the first two bus parking spaces. Paul noted
that an attempt was made about 10 years ago to alleviate the bus parking
problem with no solution. . He mentioned the danger of the corner of ~~ Main
and pioneer when turning the corner and thought one of the auto parking
spaces at the end could be removed. He apologized for not having any solid
recommendations. Phil asked where the buses go when there are more than
five and Paul said anywhere they can (usually on E. Main). Paul said there
were as many buses during the day as there were at night. Armitage asked
if making Hargadine one way in order to accommodate bus parking was ever
discussed. Hall said would be too limiting. Paul noted that originally,
Sh~kespeare wanted to park their buses on Hargadine and were going to make
bays at the entrance of the parking lot. He thought the right of~~way could
be used to widen the parking area but knew it would be very expensive. He
thought MAYBE Shakespeare might be able to fund.
("","":',1 ,..
:-j': '
,----
Minutes - Traffic Safety Commission
May 24, 1990 Page Two
Phil asked Paul which is better... removing the bus parking or the
auto parking? Armitage asked which parking served more people... the bus
or auto parking on pioneer? Four auto spaces served four people whereas
two bus spaces served many more people. Paul felt his patrons used the
limited parking spaces to get tickets and information and did not think it
a good idea to take those away totally. Schweiger endorsed (from a
business owner's standpoint) to alleviate at least the first auto parking
space. Armitage felt removing only one space would create a bottleneck
problem for~eople turning onto pioneer from E. Main. Sims said he felt
strongly about keeping the auto parking on one side of pioneer and could
eliminate the bottle neck problem by removing the bus parking on the lower
part. Bus parking on the flat of Hargadine seemed a safer solution than on
a hill. Paul noted there were 213' available for bus parking on pioneer (5
buses) and 230' available on Hargadine (which could accommodate six buses) .
Phil noted it would take at least 3 years to construct and felt we needed
to make an immediate change while planning ahead. Sims felt Shakespeare
needed to come back with firm recommendation. Phil preferred to pass a'
plan now even if we need to modify it at the next meeting. sims
recommended removing the bus parking within 2 years time. Walt thought
that was a good idea and Armitage thought it gave leeway to change in a
year, if necessary. Paul said he would rather not put parking on
Hargadine. Sims recommended to remove the lower two bus parking ' spaces and
create a two year program to remove all bus parking on Pioneer. Armitage
asked;if we took two buses out, would we make those spaces auto parking?
all noted that would only allow 20' for travel lanes (about 16') ,so
probably not. After much deliberation, Phil asked for a motion. Armitage
moved to remove the first two bus parking spaces, eliminate all auto
parking on west side ~nd move it to east (bus parking) side. Walt seconded
and the motion carried with Ken and Sims opposing. Walt suggested that the
Commission instruct staff to work with the festival to find alternative
parking for the buses, possibly on Hargadine, and all agreed.
parkina Space on Oak -'Sims moved that staff look at parking spaces on
Oak acro$s from Greyhound Bus Terminal and see if one can be added making
all standard two hour spaces, and Walt seconded. The motion carried
unanimously on voice vote.
Reauest from Businesses on Oak Street between B'& C Streets - Ken
moved to deny the request and leave as is and Sims seconded. The motion
carried unanimously on voice ,vote.
Overall Parkinq Plan - Sims moved to approve ~he overall downtown
parking plan as amended and Walt seconded. The motion carried unanimously
on voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
.." ,.
0. .
Traffic Safety Commission
RONALD L. SALTER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
94 THIRD STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(503) 482-4215
August 20, 1990
'MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ronald L. Salter, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Noise Regulation Ordinance
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Ashland Municipal Judge on August l5, 1990, found the
unnecessary noise ordinance to be unconstitutionally vague. The
Judge did concede that it has been in effect since 1968 and that
he has enforced it numerous times. However, based upon the
argument of defense counsel he did as I indicated, hold it to be
unconsti tutionally vague. The problem was that the ordinance
prohibited loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises but it did not
set a standard by which to measure such noises. Accordingly,
deli vered herewi th is an amendment to the Code which makes the
standard the average reasonable person of ordinary sensibility.
Due to the fact that at present we do not have an ordinance
controlling noise, I have taken the liberty of attaching an
emergency clause.
RLS/kr
Attachment
-------.~----
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT
TO UNNECESSARY NOISES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION l.
read as follows:
"B. The standard for judg ing loud, disturbing, or
unnecessary noises shall be that of an average, reasonable
person of ordinary sensibilities. Such noises which are in
violation of this section include but are not limited to the
Section 9.08.l70 B, is hereby amended to
following:"
SECTION 2. Due to the fact that at present there is
not an ordinance governing and prohibiting unnecessary noises,
an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance
shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of
it's passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
The foregoing Ordinance was read and duly approved at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland
on this____day of , 1990.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
RONALD L. SALTER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
94 THIRD STREET
ASHLAND. OREGON 97520
'),~;g~ '
; ", }'. ," /'_"': ..J~/~~~"; .
RONALD L. SALTER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
94 THIRD STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(503) 482-4215
August 29, 1990
Brian Almquist
City Administrator
City Hall
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: Opacity
Dear Brian:
Enclosed is the requested Resolution concerning the above
referenced subject. rThas been reviewed by Wanderscheid and
has his blessings.
For the ready reference of anyone who will wish to change
the wording of the Ballot Title, the law permits ten words
in the Caption, twenty words in the Question and eighty-five
words in the Explanation.
Very truly yours,
R~'~ALTER
City Attorney
RLS/as
Enclosure
..;.".,~'..'-.-'I:",1
,:I.1i.:;--::.....'1.. \
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECTION ELECTION FOR THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER,
1990, IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE
LEGAL VOTERS A MEASURE APPROVING AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO
ALLOW A WOOD STOVE OR OTHER RESIDENTIAL SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICE TO
PRODUCE SMOKE WHICH IS DARKER THAN THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SAID
ORDINANCE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION l. A special election is hereby called to be held in the
City of Ashland, Oregon on the 6th day of November, 1990, at which
election there shall be submi tted to the legal voters for their
adoption or rejection the following proposed ordinance, to wit;
ORDINANCE PROPOSED BY THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
AN ACT
To adopt an ordinance as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON:
SECTION l. A new chapter is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal
Code pertaining to a prohibi tion on wood stoves and other heating
devices emitting smoke darker than standards set forth herein and
which shall be Chapter 9.24 and to read in its entirety as follows:
Chapter 9.24
OPACITY LIMITATIONS
Sections:
9.24.0l0
9.24.020
9.24.030
Definitions
Prohibition
Penalty
9.24.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the
following definitions are hereby adopted:
(A) "Residential Solid Fuel Burning Device" means any
fireplace, fireplace insert, wood stove, wood burning heater, wood
fired boiler, coal-fired' furnace, coal stove, or similar device
burning any solid fuel used for aesthetic, cooking, or heating
,purposes, which burns less than 1,000,000 B.T.U.'s per hour.
. (B) "Opacity" means a measurement of visible emisions
defined as the degree expressed in percent to which emissions reduce
the transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in the
background.
-l- Resolution
9.24.020 Prohibition. No person owning or operating a
residential solid fuel burning device shall cause, allow, or
qischarge emissions from such device which are of an opacity greater
than 40%. However, this does not apply to emissions during the
building of a new fire, for a period or periods aggregating no more
than thirty minutes in any four hour period.
9.24.030 Penalty. Any person violating or causing the
violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be
punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal
Code.
SECTION 2. The' foregoing ordinance shall be effecti ve upon its
passage by the electorate at a election to be held on November 6th,
1990.
SECTION 3. The ballot title is as set forth on Exhibit "A", which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 4. The Ci ty Recorder is hereby requested and directed to
give due notice of such special election hereby called as provided in
the laws of the State of Oregon and the Charter and Ordinances of the
City of Ashland.
The foregoing Resolution was duly passed at a regular meeting of th
City Council on the____day of , 1990.
Nan E. Franklin
City Recorder
'SIGNED and APPROVED this___day of
, 1990.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
-2- Resolution
EXHIBIT "An
No.
ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OPACITY (DARKNESS) OF WOOD
SMOKE.
Question:
Shall an ordinance be adopted which limits
the opacity (darkness) of wood smoke?
YES ,=,
NO '=1
EXPLANATION
The proposed ordinance would limi t the opaci ty of wood
smoke to 40%. The purpose of such a limitation is to prevent the
burning of green or wet wood and such green or wet wood when burned
contributes to the polluting of the atmosphere.
~ ":~~:~;.,,'i\- '.. ; <:...~ ~.:.,$t~~, .'; '~~'<.;"'~:.L~":"" '.." ~~t..~_.'~
:'~'i:':,,_';"'-:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT NOTICES OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
BE SENT TO THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NOS. 62 AND 63 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER OBJECTIONS THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the city Council has heretofore received the proposed
assessments on Local Improvement Districts 62 and 63; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.20.110 of the Municipal Code requires the council
to direct the mailing of notices to the owners of affected
properties regarding the proposed assessments.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of
Ashland as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Recorder is hereby directed to mail or personally
deliver to the owners of each affected property in L.I.D. Nos. 62 and
63 as shown on the latest tax assessment roll, a notice containing the
information set forth in A.M.C. section 13.20.110(2).
SECTION 2. The Council hereby calls a public hearing for October 2,
1990 at 7:30 P.M. to consider written objections, if any, to the
proposed assessments.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular
meeting of the city Council of the city of Ashland on the
day of
, 1990.
Nan E. Franklin
city Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, 1990.
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor'